Evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that
examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective.[1] It seeks to identify
which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of
natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution. Adaptationist thinking about
physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in
evolutionary biology. Some evolutionary psychologists apply the same thinking to psychology,
arguing that the modularity of mind is similar to that of the body and with different modular
adaptations serving different functions. These evolutionary psychologists argue that much of
human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent
problems in human ancestral environments.[2]

Evolutionary psychology is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology—its evolutionary theory

can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of
psychology in the same way evolutionary biology has for biology.[3][4][5]

Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are
good candidates for evolutionary adaptations[6] including the abilities to infer others' emotions,
discern kin from non-kin, identify and prefer healthier mates, and cooperate with others.
Findings have been made regarding human social behaviour related to infanticide, intelligence,
marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, and parental investment. The
theories and findings of evolutionary psychology have applications in many fields, including
economics, environment, health, law, management, psychiatry, politics, and literature.[7][8]

Criticism of evolutionary psychology involves questions of testability, cognitive and evolutionary

assumptions (such as modular functioning of the brain, and large uncertainty about the
ancestral environment), importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as
political and ethical issues due to interpretations of research results.[9][10]

Contents
Scope
Principles
Premises
History
Theoretical foundations
Evolved psychological mechanisms
Historical topics
Products of evolution: adaptations, exaptations, byproducts, and random variation
Obligate and facultative adaptations
Cultural universals
Environment of evolutionary adaptedness
Mismatches
Research methods
Main areas of research
Survival and individual-level psychological adaptations
Mating
Parenting
Family and kin
Interactions with non-kin / reciprocity
Strong reciprocity (or "tribal reciprocity")
Evolutionary psychology and culture
In psychology sub-fields
Developmental psychology
Social psychology
Abnormal psychology
Antisocial and criminal behavior
Psychology of religion
Coalitional psychology
Reception and criticism
Ethical implications
Contradictions in models
Standard social science model
Reductionism and determinism
Testability of hypotheses
Modularity of mind
Cultural rather than genetic development of cognitive tools
Response by evolutionary psychologists
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links
Academic societies
Journals
Videos

Scope

Principles

Evolutionary psychology is an approach that views human nature as the product of a universal
set of evolved psychological adaptations to recurring problems in the ancestral environment.
Proponents suggest that it seeks to integrate psychology into the other natural sciences, rooting
it in the organizing theory of biology (evolutionary theory), and thus understanding psychology
as a branch of biology. Anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides note:

Evolutionary psychology is the long-forestalled scientific attempt to assemble out of

the disjointed, fragmentary, and mutually contradictory human disciplines a single,
logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social, and behavioral
 sciences – a framework that not only incorporates the evolutionary sciences on a full
and equal basis, but that systematically works out all of the revisions in existing
belief and research practice that such a synthesis requires.[11]

Just as human physiology and evolutionary physiology have worked to identify physical
adaptations of the body that represent "human physiological nature," the purpose of
evolutionary psychology is to identify evolved emotional and cognitive adaptations that
represent "human psychological nature." According to Steven Pinker, it is "not a single theory
but a large set of hypotheses" and a term that "has also come to refer to a particular way of
applying evolutionary theory to the mind, with an emphasis on adaptation, gene-level selection,
and modularity." Evolutionary psychology adopts an understanding of the mind that is based on
the computational theory of mind. It describes mental processes as computational operations,
so that, for example, a fear response is described as arising from a neurological computation
that inputs the perceptional data, e.g. a visual image of a spider, and outputs the appropriate
reaction, e.g. fear of possibly dangerous animals. Under this view, any domain-general learning
is impossible because of the combinatorial explosion. Evolutionary Psychology specifies the
domain as the problems of survival and reproduction.[12]

While philosophers have generally considered the human mind to include broad faculties, such
as reason and lust, evolutionary psychologists describe evolved psychological mechanisms as
narrowly focused to deal with specific issues, such as catching cheaters or choosing mates. The
discipline views the human brain as comprising many functional mechanisms[13] called
psychological adaptations or evolved cognitive mechanisms or cognitive modules, designed by
the process of natural selection. Examples include language-acquisition modules, incest-
avoidance mechanisms, cheater-detection mechanisms, intelligence and sex-specific mating
preferences, foraging mechanisms, alliance-tracking mechanisms, agent-detection mechanisms,
and others. Some mechanisms, termed domain-specific, deal with recurrent adaptive problems
over the course of human evolutionary history. Domain-general mechanisms, on the other
hand, are proposed to deal with evolutionary novelty.[14]

Evolutionary psychology has roots in cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology but also
draws on behavioral ecology, artificial intelligence, genetics, ethology, anthropology,
archaeology, biology, and zoology. It is closely linked to sociobiology,[6] but there are key
differences between them including the emphasis on domain-specific rather than domain-
general mechanisms, the relevance of measures of current fitness, the importance of mismatch
theory, and psychology rather than behavior.

Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions can help to clarify the distinctions between
several different, but complementary, types of explanations.[15] Evolutionary psychology focuses
primarily on the "why?" questions, while traditional psychology focuses on the "how?"
questions.[16]
 Sequential vs. Static Perspective
Historical/Developmental Current Form
Explanation of current form in terms of Explanation of the current
a historical sequence form of species
Proximate Ontogeny Mechanism
How an individual Developmental explanations for Mechanistic explanations for
organism's structures changes in individuals, from DNA to how an organism's
How vs. function their current form structures work
Why Evolutionary Adaptation
Questions Phylogeny
Why a species A species trait that evolved
The history of the evolution of
evolved the to solve a reproductive or
sequential changes in a species over
structures survival problem in the
many generations
(adaptations) it has ancestral environment

Premises

Evolutionary psychology is founded on several core premises.

1. The brain is an information processing device, and it produces behavior in response to

external and internal inputs.[3][17]
2. The brain's adaptive mechanisms were shaped by natural and sexual selection.[3][17]
3. Different neural mechanisms are specialized for solving problems in humanity's evolutionary
past.[3][17]
4. The brain has evolved specialized neural mechanisms that were designed for solving
problems that recurred over deep evolutionary time,[17] giving modern humans stone-age
minds.[3][18]
5. Most contents and processes of the brain are unconscious; and most mental problems that
seem easy to solve are actually extremely difficult problems that are solved unconsciously
by complicated neural mechanisms.[3]
6. Human psychology consists of many specialized mechanisms, each sensitive to different
classes of information or inputs. These mechanisms combine to produce manifest
behavior.[17]

History
Evolutionary psychology has its historical roots in Charles
Darwin's theory of natural selection.[6] In The Origin of
Species, Darwin predicted that psychology would develop
an evolutionary basis:

In the distant future I see open fields for far

more important researches. Psychology will be
based on a new foundation, that of the necessary Nobel Laureates Nikolaas Tinbergen
acquirement of each mental power and capacity (left) and Konrad Lorenz (right) who
by gradation. were, with Karl von Frisch,
acknowledged for work on animal
— Darwin, Charles (1859). The Origin of behavior[19]
Species ([Link]
e:Origin_of_Species_1859_facsimile.djvu/5
00). p. 488 – via Wikisource.
Two of his later books were devoted to the study of animal emotions and psychology; The
Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex in 1871 and The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals in 1872. Darwin's work inspired William James's functionalist approach to
psychology.[6] Darwin's theories of evolution, adaptation, and natural selection have provided
insight into why brains function the way they do.[20][21]

The content of evolutionary psychology has derived from, on the one hand, the biological
sciences (especially evolutionary theory as it relates to ancient human environments, the study
of paleoanthropology and animal behavior) and, on the other, the human sciences, especially
psychology.

Evolutionary biology as an academic discipline emerged with the modern synthesis in the 1930s
and 1940s.[22] In the 1930s the study of animal behavior (ethology) emerged with the work of
the Dutch biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen and the Austrian biologists Konrad Lorenz and Karl von
Frisch.

W.D. Hamilton's (1964) papers on inclusive fitness and Robert Trivers's (1972)[23] theories on
reciprocity and parental investment helped to establish evolutionary thinking in psychology and
the other social sciences. In 1975, Edward O. Wilson combined evolutionary theory with studies
of animal and social behavior, building on the works of Lorenz and Tinbergen, in his book
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.

In the 1970s, two major branches developed from ethology. Firstly, the study of animal social
behavior (including humans) generated sociobiology, defined by its pre-eminent proponent
Edward O. Wilson in 1975 as "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social
behavior"[24] and in 1978 as "the extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to
social organization."[25] Secondly, there was behavioral ecology which placed less emphasis on
social behavior; it focused on the ecological and evolutionary basis of animal and human
behavior.

In the 1970s and 1980s university departments began to include the term evolutionary biology
in their titles. The modern era of evolutionary psychology was ushered in, in particular, by
Donald Symons' 1979 book The Evolution of Human Sexuality and Leda Cosmides and John
Tooby's 1992 book The Adapted Mind.[6] David Buller observed that the term "evolutionary
psychology" is sometimes seen as denoting research based on the specific methodological and
theoretical commitments of certain researchers from the Santa Barbara school (University of
California), thus some evolutionary psychologists prefer to term their work "human ecology",
"human behavioural ecology" or "evolutionary anthropology" instead.[26]

From psychology there are the primary streams of developmental, social and cognitive
psychology. Establishing some measure of the relative influence of genetics and environment on
behavior has been at the core of behavioral genetics and its variants, notably studies at the
molecular level that examine the relationship between genes, neurotransmitters and behavior.
Dual inheritance theory (DIT), developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, has a slightly
different perspective by trying to explain how human behavior is a product of two different and
interacting evolutionary processes: genetic evolution and cultural evolution. DIT is seen by
some as a "middle-ground" between views that emphasize human universals versus those that
emphasize cultural variation.[27]

Theoretical foundations
The theories on which evolutionary psychology is based originated with Charles Darwin's work,
including his speculations about the evolutionary origins of social instincts in humans. Modern
evolutionary psychology, however, is possible only because of advances in evolutionary theory
in the 20th century.

Evolutionary psychologists say that natural selection has provided humans with many
psychological adaptations, in much the same way that it generated humans' anatomical and
physiological adaptations.[28] As with adaptations in general, psychological adaptations are said
to be specialized for the environment in which an organism evolved, the environment of
evolutionary adaptedness.[28][29] Sexual selection provides organisms with adaptations related
to mating.[28] For male mammals, which have a relatively high maximal potential reproduction
rate, sexual selection leads to adaptations that help them compete for females.[28] For female
mammals, with a relatively low maximal potential reproduction rate, sexual selection leads to
choosiness, which helps females select higher quality mates.[28] Charles Darwin described both
natural selection and sexual selection, and he relied on group selection to explain the evolution
of altruistic (self-sacrificing) behavior. But group selection was considered a weak explanation,
because in any group the less altruistic individuals will be more likely to survive, and the group
will become less self-sacrificing as a whole.

In 1964, William D. Hamilton proposed inclusive fitness theory, emphasizing a gene-centered

view of evolution. Hamilton noted that genes can increase the replication of copies of
themselves into the next generation by influencing the organism's social traits in such a way
that (statistically) results in helping the survival and reproduction of other copies of the same
genes (most simply, identical copies in the organism's close relatives). According to Hamilton's
rule, self-sacrificing behaviors (and the genes influencing them) can evolve if they typically help
the organism's close relatives so much that it more than compensates for the individual animal's
sacrifice. Inclusive fitness theory resolved the issue of how altruism can evolve. Other theories
also help explain the evolution of altruistic behavior, including evolutionary game theory, tit-
for-tat reciprocity, and generalized reciprocity. These theories help to explain the development
of altruistic behavior, and account for hostility toward cheaters (individuals that take advantage
of others' altruism).[30]

Several mid-level evolutionary theories inform evolutionary psychology. The r/K selection
theory proposes that some species prosper by having many offspring, while others follow the
strategy of having fewer offspring but investing much more in each one. Humans follow the
second strategy. Parental investment theory explains how parents invest more or less in
individual offspring based on how successful those offspring are likely to be, and thus how much
they might improve the parents' inclusive fitness. According to the Trivers–Willard hypothesis,
parents in good conditions tend to invest more in sons (who are best able to take advantage of
good conditions), while parents in poor conditions tend to invest more in daughters (who are
best able to have successful offspring even in poor conditions). According to life history theory,
animals evolve life histories to match their environments, determining details such as age at
first reproduction and number of offspring. Dual inheritance theory posits that genes and
human culture have interacted, with genes affecting the development of culture, and culture, in
turn, affecting human evolution on a genetic level (see also the Baldwin effect).

Evolved psychological mechanisms

Evolutionary psychology is based on the hypothesis that, just like hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys,
and immune systems, cognition has a functional structure that has a genetic basis, and therefore
has evolved by natural selection. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure should
be universally shared amongst a species and should solve important problems of survival and
reproduction.

Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand psychological mechanisms by understanding the

survival and reproductive functions they might have served over the course of evolutionary
history.[31] These might include abilities to infer others' emotions, discern kin from non-kin,
identify and prefer healthier mates, cooperate with others and follow leaders. Consistent with
the theory of natural selection, evolutionary psychology sees humans as often in conflict with
others, including mates and relatives. For instance, a mother may wish to wean her offspring
from breastfeeding earlier than does her infant, which frees up the mother to invest in
additional offspring.[30][32] Evolutionary psychology also recognizes the role of kin selection
and reciprocity in evolving prosocial traits such as altruism.[30] Like chimpanzees and bonobos,
humans have subtle and flexible social instincts, allowing them to form extended families,
lifelong friendships, and political alliances.[30] In studies testing theoretical predictions,
evolutionary psychologists have made modest findings on topics such as infanticide,
intelligence, marriage patterns, promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price and parental
investment.[33]

Historical topics

Proponents of evolutionary psychology in the 1990s made some explorations in historical

events, but the response from historical experts was highly negative and there has been little
effort to continue that line of research. Historian Lynn Hunt says that the historians complained
that the researchers:

have read the wrong studies, misinterpreted the results of experiments, or worse yet,
turned to neuroscience looking for a universalizing, anti-representational and anti-
intentional ontology to bolster their claims.[34]

Hunt states that "the few attempts to build up a subfield of psychohistory collapsed under the
weight of its presuppositions." She concludes that as of 2014 the "'iron curtain' between
historians and psychology...remains standing."[35]

Products of evolution: adaptations, exaptations, byproducts, and random

variation

Not all traits of organisms are evolutionary adaptations. As noted in the table below, traits may
also be exaptations, byproducts of adaptations (sometimes called "spandrels"), or random
variation between individuals.[36]

Psychological adaptations are hypothesized to be innate or relatively easy to learn and to

manifest in cultures worldwide. For example, the ability of toddlers to learn a language with
virtually no training is likely to be a psychological adaptation. On the other hand, ancestral
humans did not read or write, thus today, learning to read and write requires extensive training,
and presumably involves the repurposing of cognitive capacities that evolved in response to
selection pressures unrelated to written language.[37] However, variations in manifest behavior
can result from universal mechanisms interacting with different local environments. For
example, Caucasians who move from a northern climate to the equator will have darker skin.
The mechanisms regulating their pigmentation do not change; rather the input to those
mechanisms change, resulting in different outputs.
 Random
Adaptation Exaptation Byproduct
variation
Organismic trait designed Byproduct of an
Adaptation that has Random
to solve an ancestral adaptive
been "re-purposed" variations in an
Definition problem(s). Shows mechanism with no
to solve a different adaptation or
complexity, special current or ancestral
adaptive problem. byproduct
"design", functionality function
Bumps on the
Physiological Small bones of the White color of skull, convex or
Bones / Umbilical cord
example inner ear bones / Belly button concave belly
button shape
Toddlers' ability to learn Variations in
Psychological Ability to learn to
to talk with minimal Voluntary attention verbal
example read and write
instruction intelligence

One of the tasks of evolutionary psychology is to identify which psychological traits are likely to
be adaptations, byproducts or random variation. George C. Williams suggested that an
"adaptation is a special and onerous concept that should only be used where it is really
necessary."[38] As noted by Williams and others, adaptations can be identified by their
improbable complexity, species universality, and adaptive functionality.

Obligate and facultative adaptations

A question that may be asked about an adaptation is whether it is generally obligate (relatively
robust in the face of typical environmental variation) or facultative (sensitive to typical
environmental variation).[39] The sweet taste of sugar and the pain of hitting one's knee against
concrete are the result of fairly obligate psychological adaptations; typical environmental
variability during development does not much affect their operation. By contrast, facultative
adaptations are somewhat like "if-then" statements. For example, adult attachment style seems
particularly sensitive to early childhood experiences. As adults, the propensity to develop close,
trusting bonds with others is dependent on whether early childhood caregivers could be trusted
to provide reliable assistance and attention. The adaptation for skin to tan is conditional to
exposure to sunlight; this is an example of another facultative adaptation. When a psychological
adaptation is facultative, evolutionary psychologists concern themselves with how
developmental and environmental inputs influence the expression of the adaptation.

Cultural universals

Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are
good candidates for evolutionary adaptations.[6] Cultural universals include behaviors related to
language, cognition, social roles, gender roles, and technology.[40] Evolved psychological
adaptations (such as the ability to learn a language) interact with cultural inputs to produce
specific behaviors (e.g., the specific language learned).

Basic gender differences, such as greater eagerness for sex among men and greater coyness
among women,[41] are explained as sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations that reflect
the different reproductive strategies of males and females.[30][42]

Evolutionary psychologists contrast their approach to what they term the "standard social
science model," according to which the mind is a general-purpose cognition device shaped
almost entirely by culture.[43][44]
Environment of evolutionary adaptedness
Evolutionary psychology argues that to properly understand the functions of the brain, one
must understand the properties of the environment in which the brain evolved. That
environment is often referred to as the "environment of evolutionary adaptedness".[29]

The idea of an environment of evolutionary adaptedness was first explored as a part of

attachment theory by John Bowlby.[45] This is the environment to which a particular evolved
mechanism is adapted. More specifically, the environment of evolutionary adaptedness is
defined as the set of historically recurring selection pressures that formed a given adaptation, as
well as those aspects of the environment that were necessary for the proper development and
functioning of the adaptation.

Humans, comprising the genus Homo, appeared between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago, a time
that roughly coincides with the start of the Pleistocene 2.6 million years ago. Because the
Pleistocene ended a mere 12,000 years ago, most human adaptations either newly evolved
during the Pleistocene, or were maintained by stabilizing selection during the Pleistocene.
Evolutionary psychology, therefore, proposes that the majority of human psychological
mechanisms are adapted to reproductive problems frequently encountered in Pleistocene
environments.[46] In broad terms, these problems include those of growth, development,
differentiation, maintenance, mating, parenting, and social relationships.

The environment of evolutionary adaptedness is significantly different from modern society.[47]

The ancestors of modern humans lived in smaller groups, had more cohesive cultures, and had
more stable and rich contexts for identity and meaning.[47] Researchers look to existing hunter-
gatherer societies for clues as to how hunter-gatherers lived in the environment of evolutionary
adaptedness.[30] Unfortunately, the few surviving hunter-gatherer societies are different from
each other, and they have been pushed out of the best land and into harsh environments, so it is
not clear how closely they reflect ancestral culture.[30] However, all around the world small-
band hunter-gatherers offer a similar developmental system for the young ("hunter-gatherer
childhood model," Konner, 2005; "evolved developmental niche" or "evolved nest;" Narvaez et
al., 2013). The characteristics of the niche are largely the same as for social mammals, who
evolved over 30 million years ago: soothing perinatal experience, several years of on-request
breastfeeding, nearly constant affection or physical proximity, responsiveness to need
(mitigating offspring distress), self-directed play, and for humans, multiple responsive
caregivers. Initial studies show the importance of these components in early life for positive
child outcomes.[48][49]

Evolutionary psychologists sometimes look to chimpanzees, bonobos, and other great apes for
insight into human ancestral behavior.[30]

Mismatches

Since an organism's adaptations were suited to its ancestral environment, a new and different
environment can create a mismatch. Because humans are mostly adapted to Pleistocene
environments, psychological mechanisms sometimes exhibit "mismatches" to the modern
environment. One example is the fact that although about 10,000 people are killed with guns in
the US annually,[50] whereas spiders and snakes kill only a handful, people nonetheless learn to
fear spiders and snakes about as easily as they do a pointed gun, and more easily than an
unpointed gun, rabbits or flowers.[51] A potential explanation is that spiders and snakes were a
threat to human ancestors throughout the Pleistocene, whereas guns (and rabbits and flowers)
were not. There is thus a mismatch between humans' evolved fear-learning psychology and the
modern environment.[52][53]

This mismatch also shows up in the phenomena of the supernormal stimulus, a stimulus that
elicits a response more strongly than the stimulus for which the response evolved. The term was
coined by Niko Tinbergen to refer to non-human animal behavior, but psychologist Deirdre
Barrett said that supernormal stimulation governs the behavior of humans as powerfully as that
of other animals. She explained junk food as an exaggerated stimulus to cravings for salt, sugar,
and fats,[54] and she says that television is an exaggeration of social cues of laughter, smiling
faces and attention-grabbing action.[55] Magazine centerfolds and double cheeseburgers pull
instincts intended for an environment of evolutionary adaptedness where breast development
was a sign of health, youth and fertility in a prospective mate, and fat was a rare and vital
nutrient.[56] The psychologist Mark van Vugt recently argued that modern organizational
leadership is a mismatch.[57] His argument is that humans are not adapted to work in large,
anonymous bureaucratic structures with formal hierarchies. The human mind still responds to
personalized, charismatic leadership primarily in the context of informal, egalitarian settings.
Hence the dissatisfaction and alienation that many employees experience. Salaries, bonuses and
other privileges exploit instincts for relative status, which attract particularly males to senior
executive positions.[58]

Research methods
Evolutionary theory is heuristic in that it may generate hypotheses that might not be developed
from other theoretical approaches. One of the major goals of adaptationist research is to identify
which organismic traits are likely to be adaptations, and which are byproducts or random
variations. As noted earlier, adaptations are expected to show evidence of complexity,
functionality, and species universality, while byproducts or random variation will not. In
addition, adaptations are expected to manifest as proximate mechanisms that interact with the
environment in either a generally obligate or facultative fashion (see above). Evolutionary
psychologists are also interested in identifying these proximate mechanisms (sometimes termed
"mental mechanisms" or "psychological adaptations") and what type of information they take as
input, how they process that information, and their outputs.[39] Evolutionary developmental
psychology, or "evo-devo," focuses on how adaptations may be activated at certain
developmental times (e.g., losing baby teeth, adolescence, etc.) or how events during the
development of an individual may alter life-history trajectories.

Evolutionary psychologists use several strategies to develop and test hypotheses about whether
a psychological trait is likely to be an evolved adaptation. Buss (2011)[59] notes that these
methods include:

Cross-cultural Consistency. Characteristics that have been demonstrated to be

cross-cultural human universals such as smiling, crying, facial expressions are
presumed to be evolved psychological adaptations. Several evolutionary
psychologists have collected massive datasets from cultures around the world to
assess cross-cultural universality.

Function to Form (or "problem to solution"). The fact that males, but not females,
risk potential misidentification of genetic offspring (referred to as "paternity
insecurity") led evolutionary psychologists to hypothesize that, compared to females,
male jealousy would be more focused on sexual, rather than emotional, infidelity.

Form to Function (reverse-engineering – or "solution to problem"). Morning

sickness, and associated aversions to certain types of food, during pregnancy seemed
 to have the characteristics of an evolved adaptation (complexity and universality).
Margie Profet hypothesized that the function was to avoid the ingestion of toxins
during early pregnancy that could damage fetus (but which are otherwise likely to be
harmless to healthy non-pregnant women).

Corresponding Neurological Modules. Evolutionary psychology and cognitive

neuropsychology are mutually compatible – evolutionary psychology helps to
identify psychological adaptations and their ultimate, evolutionary functions, while
neuropsychology helps to identify the proximate manifestations of these
adaptations.

Current evolutionary Adaptiveness. In addition to evolutionary models that suggest

evolution occurs across large spans of time, recent research has demonstrated that
some evolutionary shifts can be fast and dramatic. Consequently, some evolutionary
psychologists have focused on the impact of psychological traits in the current
environment. Such research can be used to inform estimates of the prevalence of
traits over time. Such work has been informative in studying evolutionary
psychopathology.[60]

Evolutionary psychologists also use various sources of data for testing, including experiments,
archaeological records, data from hunter-gatherer societies, observational studies, neuroscience
data, self-reports and surveys, public records, and human products.[61] Recently, additional
methods and tools have been introduced based on fictional scenarios,[62] mathematical
models,[63] and multi-agent computer simulations.[64]

Main areas of research

Foundational areas of research in evolutionary psychology can be divided into broad categories
of adaptive problems that arise from the theory of evolution itself: survival, mating, parenting,
family and kinship, interactions with non-kin, and cultural evolution.

Survival and individual-level psychological adaptations

Problems of survival are clear targets for the evolution of physical and psychological
adaptations. Major problems the ancestors of present-day humans faced included food selection
and acquisition; territory selection and physical shelter; and avoiding predators and other
environmental threats.[65]

Consciousness

Consciousness meets George Williams' criteria of species universality, complexity,[66] and

functionality, and it is a trait that apparently increases fitness.[67]

In his paper "Evolution of consciousness," John Eccles argues that special anatomical and
physical adaptations of the mammalian cerebral cortex gave rise to consciousness.[68] In
contrast, others have argued that the recursive circuitry underwriting consciousness is much
more primitive, having evolved initially in pre-mammalian species because it improves the
capacity for interaction with both social and natural environments by providing an energy-
saving "neutral" gear in an otherwise energy-expensive motor output machine.[69] Once in
place, this recursive circuitry may well have provided a basis for the subsequent development of
many of the functions that consciousness facilitates in higher organisms, as outlined by Bernard
J. Baars.[70] Richard Dawkins suggested that humans evolved consciousness in order to make
themselves the subjects of thought.[71] Daniel Povinelli suggests that large, tree-climbing apes
evolved consciousness to take into account one's own mass when moving safely among tree
branches.[71] Consistent with this hypothesis, Gordon Gallup found that chimpanzees and
orangutans, but not little monkeys or terrestrial gorillas, demonstrated self-awareness in mirror
tests.[71]

The concept of consciousness can refer to voluntary action, awareness, or wakefulness.

However, even voluntary behavior involves unconscious mechanisms. Many cognitive processes
take place in the cognitive unconscious, unavailable to conscious awareness. Some behaviors are
conscious when learned but then become unconscious, seemingly automatic. Learning,
especially implicitly learning a skill, can take place outside of consciousness. For example,
plenty of people know how to turn right when they ride a bike, but very few can accurately
explain how they actually do so. Evolutionary psychology approaches self-deception as an
adaptation that can improve one's results in social exchanges.[71]

Sleep may have evolved to conserve energy when activity would be less fruitful or more
dangerous, such as at night, and especially during the winter season.[71]

Sensation and perception

Many experts, such as Jerry Fodor, write that the purpose of perception is knowledge, but
evolutionary psychologists hold that its primary purpose is to guide action.[72] For example,
they say, depth perception seems to have evolved not to help us know the distances to other
objects but rather to help us move around in space.[72] Evolutionary psychologists say that
animals from fiddler crabs to humans use eyesight for collision avoidance, suggesting that
vision is basically for directing action, not providing knowledge.[72]

Building and maintaining sense organs is metabolically expensive, so these organs evolve only
when they improve an organism's fitness.[72] More than half the brain is devoted to processing
sensory information, and the brain itself consumes roughly one-fourth of one's metabolic
resources, so the senses must provide exceptional benefits to fitness.[72] Perception accurately
mirrors the world; animals get useful, accurate information through their senses.[72]

Scientists who study perception and sensation have long understood the human senses as
adaptations to their surrounding worlds.[72] Depth perception consists of processing over half a
dozen visual cues, each of which is based on a regularity of the physical world.[72] Vision evolved
to respond to the narrow range of electromagnetic energy that is plentiful and that does not pass
through objects.[72] Sound waves go around corners and interact with obstacles, creating a
complex pattern that includes useful information about the sources of and distances to
objects.[72] Larger animals naturally make lower-pitched sounds as a consequence of their
size.[72] The range over which an animal hears, on the other hand, is determined by adaptation.
Homing pigeons, for example, can hear the very low-pitched sound (infrasound) that carries
great distances, even though most smaller animals detect higher-pitched sounds.[72] Taste and
smell respond to chemicals in the environment that are thought to have been significant for
fitness in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.[72] For example, salt and sugar were
apparently both valuable to the human or pre-human inhabitants of the environment of
evolutionary adaptedness, so present-day humans have an intrinsic hunger for salty and sweet
tastes.[72] The sense of touch is actually many senses, including pressure, heat, cold, tickle, and
pain.[72] Pain, while unpleasant, is adaptive.[72] An important adaptation for senses is range
shifting, by which the organism becomes temporarily more or less sensitive to sensation.[72] For
example, one's eyes automatically adjust to dim or bright ambient light.[72] Sensory abilities of
different organisms often coevolve, as is the case with the hearing of echolocating bats and that
of the moths that have evolved to respond to the sounds that the bats make.[72]

Evolutionary psychologists contend that perception demonstrates the principle of modularity,

with specialized mechanisms handling particular perception tasks.[72] For example, people with
damage to a particular part of the brain suffer from the specific defect of not being able to
recognize faces (prosopagnosia).[72] Evolutionary psychology suggests that this indicates a so-
called face-reading module.[72]

Learning and facultative adaptations

In evolutionary psychology, learning is said to be accomplished through evolved capacities,

specifically facultative adaptations.[73] Facultative adaptations express themselves differently
depending on input from the environment.[73] Sometimes the input comes during development
and helps shape that development.[73] For example, migrating birds learn to orient themselves
by the stars during a critical period in their maturation.[73] Evolutionary psychologists believe
that humans also learn language along an evolved program, also with critical periods.[73] The
input can also come during daily tasks, helping the organism cope with changing environmental
conditions.[73] For example, animals evolved Pavlovian conditioning in order to solve problems
about causal relationships.[73] Animals accomplish learning tasks most easily when those tasks
resemble problems that they faced in their evolutionary past, such as a rat learning where to
find food or water.[73] Learning capacities sometimes demonstrate differences between the
sexes.[73] In many animal species, for example, males can solve spatial problems faster and
more accurately than females, due to the effects of male hormones during development.[73] The
same might be true of humans.[73]

Emotion and motivation

Motivations direct and energize behavior, while emotions provide the affective component to
motivation, positive or negative.[74] In the early 1970s, Paul Ekman and colleagues began a line
of research which suggests that many emotions are universal.[74] He found evidence that
humans share at least five basic emotions: fear, sadness, happiness, anger, and disgust.[74]
Social emotions evidently evolved to motivate social behaviors that were adaptive in the
environment of evolutionary adaptedness.[74] For example, spite seems to work against the
individual but it can establish an individual's reputation as someone to be feared.[74] Shame and
pride can motivate behaviors that help one maintain one's standing in a community, and self-
esteem is one's estimate of one's status.[30][74] Motivation has a neurobiological basis in the
reward system of the brain. Recently, it has been suggested that reward systems may evolve in
such a way that there may be an inherent or unavoidable trade-off in the motivational system
for activities of short versus long duration.[75]

Cognition

Cognition refers to internal representations of the world and internal information processing.
From an evolutionary psychology perspective, cognition is not "general purpose," but uses
heuristics, or strategies, that generally increase the likelihood of solving problems that the
ancestors of present-day humans routinely faced. For example, present-day humans are far
more likely to solve logic problems that involve detecting cheating (a common problem given
humans' social nature) than the same logic problem put in purely abstract terms.[76] Since the
ancestors of present-day humans did not encounter truly random events, present-day humans
may be cognitively predisposed to incorrectly identify patterns in random sequences.
"Gamblers' Fallacy" is one example of this. Gamblers may falsely believe that they have hit a
"lucky streak" even when each outcome is actually random and independent of previous trials.
Most people believe that if a fair coin has been flipped 9 times and Heads appears each time,
that on the tenth flip, there is a greater than 50% chance of getting Tails.[74] Humans find it far
easier to make diagnoses or predictions using frequency data than when the same information
is presented as probabilities or percentages, presumably because the ancestors of present-day
humans lived in relatively small tribes (usually with fewer than 150 people) where frequency
information was more readily available.[74]

Personality

Evolutionary psychology is primarily interested in finding commonalities between people, or

basic human psychological nature. From an evolutionary perspective, the fact that people have
fundamental differences in personality traits initially presents something of a puzzle.[77] (Note:
The field of behavioral genetics is concerned with statistically partitioning differences between
people into genetic and environmental sources of variance. However, understanding the
concept of heritability can be tricky – heritability refers only to the differences between people,
never the degree to which the traits of an individual are due to environmental or genetic factors,
since traits are always a complex interweaving of both.)

Personality traits are conceptualized by evolutionary psychologists as due to normal variation

around an optimum, due to frequency-dependent selection (behavioral polymorphisms), or as
facultative adaptations. Like variability in height, some personality traits may simply reflect
inter-individual variability around a general optimum.[77] Or, personality traits may represent
different genetically predisposed "behavioral morphs" – alternate behavioral strategies that
depend on the frequency of competing behavioral strategies in the population. For example, if
most of the population is generally trusting and gullible, the behavioral morph of being a
"cheater" (or, in the extreme case, a sociopath) may be advantageous.[78] Finally, like many
other psychological adaptations, personality traits may be facultative – sensitive to typical
variations in the social environment, especially during early development. For example, later-
born children are more likely than firstborns to be rebellious, less conscientious and more open
to new experiences, which may be advantageous to them given their particular niche in family
structure.[79] It is important to note that shared environmental influences do play a role in
personality and are not always of less importance than genetic factors. However, shared
environmental influences often decrease to near zero after adolescence but do not completely
disappear.[80]

Language

According to Steven Pinker, who builds on the work by Noam Chomsky, the universal human
ability to learn to talk between the ages of 1 – 4, basically without training, suggests that
language acquisition is a distinctly human psychological adaptation (see, in particular, Pinker's
The Language Instinct). Pinker and Bloom (1990) argue that language as a mental faculty
shares many likenesses with the complex organs of the body which suggests that, like these
organs, language has evolved as an adaptation, since this is the only known mechanism by
which such complex organs can develop.[81]

Pinker follows Chomsky in arguing that the fact that children can learn any human language
with no explicit instruction suggests that language, including most of grammar, is basically
innate and that it only needs to be activated by interaction. Chomsky himself does not believe
language to have evolved as an adaptation, but suggests that it likely evolved as a byproduct of
some other adaptation, a so-called spandrel. But Pinker and Bloom argue that the organic
nature of language strongly suggests that it has an adaptational origin.[82]

Evolutionary psychologists hold that the FOXP2 gene may well be associated with the evolution
of human language.[83] In the 1980s, psycholinguist Myrna Gopnik identified a dominant gene
that causes language impairment in the KE family of Britain.[83] This gene turned out to be a
mutation of the FOXP2 gene.[83] Humans have a unique allele of this gene, which has otherwise
been closely conserved through most of mammalian evolutionary history.[83] This unique allele
seems to have first appeared between 100 and 200 thousand years ago, and it is now all but
universal in humans.[83] However, the once-popular idea that FOXP2 is a 'grammar gene' or
that it triggered the emergence of language in Homo sapiens is now widely discredited.[84]

Currently, several competing theories about the evolutionary origin of language coexist, none of
them having achieved a general consensus.[85] Researchers of language acquisition in primates
and humans such as Michael Tomasello and Talmy Givón, argue that the innatist framework
has understated the role of imitation in learning and that it is not at all necessary to posit the
existence of an innate grammar module to explain human language acquisition. Tomasello
argues that studies of how children and primates actually acquire communicative skills suggest
that humans learn complex behavior through experience, so that instead of a module
specifically dedicated to language acquisition, language is acquired by the same cognitive
mechanisms that are used to acquire all other kinds of socially transmitted behavior.[86]

On the issue of whether language is best seen as having evolved as an adaptation or as a

spandrel, evolutionary biologist W. Tecumseh Fitch, following Stephen J. Gould, argues that it
is unwarranted to assume that every aspect of language is an adaptation, or that language as a
whole is an adaptation. He criticizes some strands of evolutionary psychology for suggesting a
pan-adaptionist view of evolution, and dismisses Pinker and Bloom's question of whether
"Language has evolved as an adaptation" as being misleading. He argues instead that from a
biological viewpoint the evolutionary origins of language is best conceptualized as being the
probable result of a convergence of many separate adaptations into a complex system.[87] A
similar argument is made by Terrence Deacon who in The Symbolic Species argues that the
different features of language have co-evolved with the evolution of the mind and that the ability
to use symbolic communication is integrated in all other cognitive processes.[88]

If the theory that language could have evolved as a single adaptation is accepted, the question
becomes which of its many functions has been the basis of adaptation. Several evolutionary
hypotheses have been posited: that language evolved for the purpose of social grooming, that it
evolved as a way to show mating potential or that it evolved to form social contracts.
Evolutionary psychologists recognize that these theories are all speculative and that much more
evidence is required to understand how language might have been selectively adapted.[89]

Mating

Given that sexual reproduction is the means by which genes are propagated into future
generations, sexual selection plays a large role in human evolution. Human mating, then, is of
interest to evolutionary psychologists who aim to investigate evolved mechanisms to attract and
secure mates.[90] Several lines of research have stemmed from this interest, such as studies of
mate selection[91][92][93] mate poaching,[94] mate retention,[95] mating preferences[96] and
conflict between the sexes.[97]

In 1972 Robert Trivers published an influential paper[98] on sex differences that is now referred
to as parental investment theory. The size differences of gametes (anisogamy) is the
fundamental, defining difference between males (small gametes – sperm) and females (large
gametes – ova). Trivers noted that anisogamy typically results in different levels of parental
investment between the sexes, with females initially investing more. Trivers proposed that this
difference in parental investment leads to the sexual selection of different reproductive
strategies between the sexes and to sexual conflict. For example, he suggested that the sex that
invests less in offspring will generally compete for access to the higher-investing sex to increase
their inclusive fitness (also see Bateman's principle[99]). Trivers posited that differential
parental investment led to the evolution of sexual dimorphisms in mate choice, intra- and inter-
sexual reproductive competition, and courtship displays. In mammals, including humans,
females make a much larger parental investment than males (i.e. gestation followed by
childbirth and lactation). Parental investment theory is a branch of life history theory.

Buss and Schmitt's (1993) Sexual Strategies Theory[100] proposed that, due to differential
parental investment, humans have evolved sexually dimorphic adaptations related to "sexual
accessibility, fertility assessment, commitment seeking and avoidance, immediate and enduring
resource procurement, paternity certainty, assessment of mate value, and parental investment."
Their Strategic Interference Theory[101] suggested that conflict between the sexes occurs when
the preferred reproductive strategies of one sex interfere with those of the other sex, resulting in
the activation of emotional responses such as anger or jealousy.

Women are generally more selective when choosing mates, especially under long-term mating
conditions. However, under some circumstances, short term mating can provide benefits to
women as well, such as fertility insurance, trading up to better genes, reducing the risk of
inbreeding, and insurance protection of her offspring.[102]

Due to male paternity insecurity, sex differences have been found in the domains of sexual
jealousy.[103][104] Females generally react more adversely to emotional infidelity and males will
react more to sexual infidelity. This particular pattern is predicted because the costs involved in
mating for each sex are distinct. Women, on average, should prefer a mate who can offer
resources (e.g., financial, commitment), thus, a woman risks losing such resources with a mate
who commits emotional infidelity. Men, on the other hand, are never certain of the genetic
paternity of their children because they do not bear the offspring themselves ("paternity
insecurity"). This suggests that for men sexual infidelity would generally be more aversive than
emotional infidelity because investing resources in another man's offspring does not lead to the
propagation of their own genes.[105]

Another interesting line of research is that which examines women's mate preferences across
the ovulatory cycle.[106][107] The theoretical underpinning of this research is that ancestral
women would have evolved mechanisms to select mates with certain traits depending on their
hormonal status. Known as the ovulatory shift hypothesis, the theory posits that, during the
ovulatory phase of a woman's cycle (approximately days 10–15 of a woman's cycle),[108] a
woman who mated with a male with high genetic quality would have been more likely, on
average, to produce and bear a healthy offspring than a woman who mated with a male with low
genetic quality. These putative preferences are predicted to be especially apparent for short-
term mating domains because a potential male mate would only be offering genes to a potential
offspring. This hypothesis allows researchers to examine whether women select mates who have
characteristics that indicate high genetic quality during the high fertility phase of their ovulatory
cycles. Indeed, studies have shown that women's preferences vary across the ovulatory cycle. In
particular, Haselton and Miller (2006) showed that highly fertile women prefer creative but
poor men as short-term mates. Creativity may be a proxy for good genes.[109] Research by
Gangestad et al. (2004) indicates that highly fertile women prefer men who display social
presence and intrasexual competition; these traits may act as cues that would help women
predict which men may have, or would be able to acquire, resources.

Parenting

Reproduction is always costly for women, and can also be for men. Individuals are limited in the
degree to which they can devote time and resources to producing and raising their young, and
such expenditure may also be detrimental to their future condition, survival and further
reproductive output. Parental investment is any parental expenditure (time, energy etc.) that
benefits one offspring at a cost to parents' ability to invest in other components of fitness
(Clutton-Brock 1991: 9; Trivers 1972). Components of fitness (Beatty 1992) include the well-
being of existing offspring, parents' future reproduction, and inclusive fitness through aid to kin
(Hamilton, 1964). Parental investment theory is a branch of life history theory.

Robert Trivers' theory of parental investment predicts that the sex making the largest
investment in lactation, nurturing and protecting offspring will be more discriminating in
mating and that the sex that invests less in offspring will compete for access to the higher
investing sex (see Bateman's principle).[99] Sex differences in parental effort are important in
determining the strength of sexual selection.

The benefits of parental investment to the offspring are large and are associated with the effects
on condition, growth, survival, and ultimately, on the reproductive success of the offspring.
However, these benefits can come at the cost of the parent's ability to reproduce in the future
e.g. through the increased risk of injury when defending offspring against predators, the loss of
mating opportunities whilst rearing offspring, and an increase in the time to the next
reproduction. Overall, parents are selected to maximize the difference between the benefits and
the costs, and parental care will likely evolve when the benefits exceed the costs.

The Cinderella effect is an alleged high incidence of stepchildren being physically, emotionally
or sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of their
stepparents at significantly higher rates than their genetic counterparts. It takes its name from
the fairy tale character Cinderella, who in the story was cruelly mistreated by her stepmother
and stepsisters.[110] Daly and Wilson (1996) noted: "Evolutionary thinking led to the discovery
of the most important risk factor for child homicide – the presence of a stepparent. Parental
efforts and investments are valuable resources, and selection favors those parental psyches that
allocate effort effectively to promote fitness. The adaptive problems that challenge parental
decision-making include both the accurate identification of one's offspring and the allocation of
one's resources among them with sensitivity to their needs and abilities to convert parental
investment into fitness increments…. Stepchildren were seldom or never so valuable to one's
expected fitness as one's own offspring would be, and those parental psyches that were easily
parasitized by just any appealing youngster must always have incurred a selective
disadvantage"(Daly & Wilson, 1996, pp. 64–65). However, they note that not all stepparents will
"want" to abuse their partner's children, or that genetic parenthood is any insurance against
abuse. They see step parental care as primarily "mating effort" towards the genetic parent.[111]

Family and kin

Inclusive fitness is the sum of an organism's classical fitness (how many of its own offspring it
produces and supports) and the number of equivalents of its own offspring it can add to the
population by supporting others.[112] The first component is called classical fitness by Hamilton
(1964).

From the gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately depends on leaving behind the
maximum number of copies of itself in the population. Until 1964, it was generally believed that
genes only achieved this by causing the individual to leave the maximum number of viable
offspring. However, in 1964 W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that, because close relatives
of an organism share some identical genes, a gene can also increase its evolutionary success by
promoting the reproduction and survival of these related or otherwise similar individuals.
Hamilton concluded that this leads natural selection to favor organisms that would behave in
ways that maximize their inclusive fitness. It is also true that natural selection favors behavior
that maximizes personal fitness.

Hamilton's rule describes mathematically whether or not a gene for altruistic behavior will
spread in a population:

where

▪ is the reproductive cost to the altruist,

▪ is the reproductive benefit to the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and
▪ is the probability, above the population average, of the individuals sharing an altruistic
gene – commonly viewed as "degree of relatedness".

The concept serves to explain how natural selection can perpetuate altruism. If there is an
"altruism gene" (or complex of genes) that influences an organism's behavior to be helpful and
protective of relatives and their offspring, this behavior also increases the proportion of the
altruism gene in the population, because relatives are likely to share genes with the altruist due
to common descent. Altruists may also have some way to recognize altruistic behavior in
unrelated individuals and be inclined to support them. As Dawkins points out in The Selfish
Gene (Chapter 6) and The Extended Phenotype,[113] this must be distinguished from the green-
beard effect.

Although it is generally true that humans tend to be more altruistic toward their kin than
toward non-kin, the relevant proximate mechanisms that mediate this cooperation have been
debated (see kin recognition), with some arguing that kin status is determined primarily via
social and cultural factors (such as co-residence, maternal association of sibs, etc.),[114] while
others have argued that kin recognition can also be mediated by biological factors such as facial
resemblance and immunogenetic similarity of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).[115]
For a discussion of the interaction of these social and biological kin recognition factors see
Lieberman, Tooby, and Cosmides (2007)[116] (PDF ([Link]
700/[Link]

Whatever the proximate mechanisms of kin recognition there is substantial evidence that
humans act generally more altruistically to close genetic kin compared to genetic non-kin.[117]
[118][119]

Interactions with non-kin / reciprocity

Although interactions with non-kin are generally less altruistic compared to those with kin,
cooperation can be maintained with non-kin via mutually beneficial reciprocity as was proposed
by Robert Trivers.[23] If there are repeated encounters between the same two players in an
evolutionary game in which each of them can choose either to "cooperate" or "defect," then a
strategy of mutual cooperation may be favored even if it pays each player, in the short term, to
defect when the other cooperates. Direct reciprocity can lead to the evolution of cooperation
only if the probability, w, of another encounter between the same two individuals exceeds the
cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act:

w > c/b

Reciprocity can also be indirect if information about previous interactions is shared. Reputation
allows evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Natural selection favors strategies that
base the decision to help on the reputation of the recipient: studies show that people who are
more helpful are more likely to receive help. The calculations of indirect reciprocity are
complicated and only a tiny fraction of this universe has been uncovered, but again a simple rule
has emerged.[120] Indirect reciprocity can only promote cooperation if the probability, q, of
knowing someone's reputation exceeds the cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act:

q > c/b

One important problem with this explanation is that individuals may be able to evolve the
capacity to obscure their reputation, reducing the probability, q, that it will be known.[121]

Trivers argues that friendship and various social emotions evolved in order to manage
reciprocity.[122] Liking and disliking, he says, evolved to help present-day humans' ancestors
form coalitions with others who reciprocated and to exclude those who did not reciprocate.[122]
Moral indignation may have evolved to prevent one's altruism from being exploited by cheaters,
and gratitude may have motivated present-day humans' ancestors to reciprocate appropriately
after benefiting from others' altruism.[122] Likewise, present-day humans feel guilty when they
fail to reciprocate.[122] These social motivations match what evolutionary psychologists expect
to see in adaptations that evolved to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks of
reciprocity.[122]

Evolutionary psychologists say that humans have psychological adaptations that evolved
specifically to help us identify nonreciprocators, commonly referred to as "cheaters."[122] In
1993, Robert Frank and his associates found that participants in a prisoner's dilemma scenario
were often able to predict whether their partners would "cheat," based on a half-hour of
unstructured social interaction.[122] In a 1996 experiment, for example, Linda Mealey and her
colleagues found that people were better at remembering the faces of people when those faces
were associated with stories about those individuals cheating (such as embezzling money from a
church).[122]

Strong reciprocity (or "tribal reciprocity")

Humans may have an evolved set of psychological adaptations that predispose them to be more
cooperative than otherwise would be expected with members of their tribal in-group, and, more
nasty to members of tribal out groups. These adaptations may have been a consequence of tribal
warfare.[123] Humans may also have predispositions for "altruistic punishment" – to punish in-
group members who violate in-group rules, even when this altruistic behavior cannot be
justified in terms of helping those you are related to (kin selection), cooperating with those who
you will interact with again (direct reciprocity), or cooperating to better your reputation with
others (indirect reciprocity).[124][125]

Evolutionary psychology and culture

Though evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors,
determined by species-typical psychological adaptations, considerable work has been done on
how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989).[126]
Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific
psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or
taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual
passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989),
among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive
behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured
and patterned ways, to be used as a rich (but by no means the only) source of information out of
which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence,
this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect." (Tooby and
Cosmides 1989).[126]

In psychology sub-fields

Developmental psychology

According to Paul Baltes, the benefits granted by evolutionary selection decrease with age.
Natural selection has not eliminated many harmful conditions and nonadaptive characteristics
that appear among older adults, such as Alzheimer disease. If it were a disease that killed 20-
year-olds instead of 70-year-olds this may have been a disease that natural selection could have
eliminated ages ago. Thus, unaided by evolutionary pressures against nonadaptive conditions,
modern humans suffer the aches, pains, and infirmities of aging and as the benefits of
evolutionary selection decrease with age, the need for modern technological mediums against
non-adaptive conditions increases.[127]

Social psychology

As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with
navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting
with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers
in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining
to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social
cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice,
intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences.[128][129][130][131]

When endeavouring to solve a problem humans at an early age show determination while
chimpanzees have no comparable facial expression. Researchers suspect the human determined
expression evolved because when a human is determinedly working on a problem other people
will frequently help.[132]

Abnormal psychology

Adaptationist hypotheses regarding the etiology of psychological disorders are often based on
analogies between physiological and psychological dysfunctions,[133] as noted in the table
below. Prominent theorists and evolutionary psychiatrists include Michael T. McGuire, Anthony
Stevens, and Randolph M. Nesse. They, and others, suggest that mental disorders are due to the
interactive effects of both nature and nurture, and often have multiple contributing causes.[16]
 Possible causes of psychological 'abnormalities' from an adaptationist perspective
Summary based on information in these textbooks (all titled "Evolutionary Psychology"): Buss (2011),[117] Gaulin
& McBurney (2004),[118] Workman & Reader (2008)[134] as well as Cosmides & Tooby (1999) Toward an
evolutionary taxonomy of treatable conditions[135]
Causal mechanism of
failure or malfunction of Physiological Example Hypothesized Psychological Example
adaptation
Mild depression or anxiety (functional responses
Fever / Vomiting
Functioning adaptation to mild loss or stress[136]/ reduction of social
(functional responses to infection or
(adaptive defense) interactions to prevent infection by contagious
ingestion of toxins)
pathogens)[137]

Sexual fetishes (?)

By-product of an Intestinal gas (possible byproduct of normal sexual arousal
adaptation(s) (byproduct of digestion of fiber) adaptations that have 'imprinted' on unusual objects
or situations)

Sickle cell disease (Gene that Schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (May be side-
Adaptations with imparts malaria resistance, in effects of adaptations for high levels of creativity,
multiple effects homozygous form, causes sickle cell perhaps dependent on alternate developmental
anemia) trajectories)

Allergies
Malfunctioning Autism
(over-reactive immunological
adaptation (possible malfunctioning of theory of mind module)
responses)

Personality disorders
Frequency-dependent The two sexes / Different blood (may represent alternative behavioral strategies
morphs and immune system types possibly dependent on its prevalence in the
population)

More frequent modern interaction with

Mismatch between Type 2 Diabetes
strangers (compared to family and close
ancestral & current (May be related to the abundance of
friends) may predispose greater incidence of
environments sugary foods in the modern world)
depression & anxiety
Extremities of the distribution of cognitive and
Tails of normal personality traits
Dwarfism or gigantism
distribution (bell curve) (e.g., extremely introversion and extraversion, or
intellectual giftedness and intellectual disability)

Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may reflect a
side-effect of genes with fitness benefits, such as increased creativity.[138] (Some individuals
with bipolar disorder are especially creative during their manic phases and the close relatives of
people with schizophrenia have been found to be more likely to have creative professions.[138])
A 1994 report by the American Psychiatry Association found that people suffered from
schizophrenia at roughly the same rate in Western and non-Western cultures, and in
industrialized and pastoral societies, suggesting that schizophrenia is not a disease of
civilization nor an arbitrary social invention.[138] Sociopathy may represent an evolutionarily
stable strategy, by which a small number of people who cheat on social contracts benefit in a
society consisting mostly of non-sociopaths.[16] Mild depression may be an adaptive response to
withdraw from, and re-evaluate, situations that have led to disadvantageous outcomes (the
"analytical rumination hypothesis")[136] (see Evolutionary approaches to depression).

Some of these speculations have yet to be developed into fully testable hypotheses, and a great
deal of research is required to confirm their validity.[139][140]

Antisocial and criminal behavior

Evolutionary psychology has been applied to explain criminal or otherwise immoral behavior as
being adaptive or related to adaptive behaviors. Males are generally more aggressive than
females, who are more selective of their partners because of the far greater effort they have to
contribute to pregnancy and child-rearing. Males being more aggressive is hypothesized to stem
from the more intense reproductive competition faced by them. Males of low status may be
especially vulnerable to being childless. It may have been evolutionary advantageous to engage
in highly risky and violently aggressive behavior to increase their status and therefore
reproductive success. This may explain why males are generally involved in more crimes, and
why low status and being unmarried are associated with criminality. Furthermore, competition
over females is argued to have been particularly intensive in late adolescence and young
adulthood, which is theorized to explain why crime rates are particularly high during this
period.[141] Some sociologists have underlined differential exposure to androgens as the cause of
these behaviors, notably Lee Ellis in his evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory.[142]

Many conflicts that result in harm and death involve status, reputation, and seemingly trivial
insults.[141] Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that in non-state societies without
a police it was very important to have a credible deterrence against aggression. Therefore, it was
important to be perceived as having a credible reputation for retaliation, resulting in humans
developing instincts for revenge as well as for protecting reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues
that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of violence
compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very
locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and
aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely
important.[141]

Rape is theorized to be a reproductive strategy that facilitates the propagation of the rapist's
progeny. Such a strategy may be adopted by men who otherwise are unlikely to be appealing to
women and therefore cannot form legitimate relationships, or by high-status men on socially
vulnerable women who are unlikely to retaliate to increase their reproductive success even
further.[143] The sociobiological theories of rape are highly controversial, as traditional theories
typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation, and objections to this theory are
made on ethical, religious, political, as well as scientific grounds.

Psychology of religion

Adaptationist perspectives on religious belief suggest that, like all behavior, religious behaviors
are a product of the human brain. As with all other organ functions, cognition's functional
structure has been argued to have a genetic foundation, and is therefore subject to the effects of
natural selection and sexual selection. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure
should be universally shared amongst humans and should have solved important problems of
survival and reproduction in ancestral environments. However, evolutionary psychologists
remain divided on whether religious belief is more likely a consequence of evolved psychological
adaptations,[144] or a byproduct of other cognitive adaptations.[145]

Coalitional psychology

Coalitional psychology is an approach to explain political behaviors between different coalitions

and the conditionality of these behaviors in evolutionary psychological perspective. This
approach assumes that since human beings appeared on the earth, they have evolved to live in
groups instead of living as individuals to achieve benefits such as more mating opportunities
and increased status.[146] Human beings thus naturally think and act in a way that manages and
negotiates group dynamics.

Coalitional psychology offers falsifiable ex ante prediction by positing five hypotheses on how
these psychological adaptations operate:[147]

▪ Humans represent groups as a special category of individual, unstable and with a short
shadow of the future
▪ Political entrepreneurs strategically manipulate the coalitional environment, often appealing
to emotional devices such as "outrage" to inspire collective action.
▪ Relative gains dominate relations with enemies, whereas absolute gains characterize
relations with allies.
▪ Coalitional size and male physical strength will positively predict individual support for
aggressive foreign policies.
▪ Individuals with children, particularly women, will vary in adopting aggressive foreign policies
than those without progeny.

Reception and criticism

Critics of evolutionary psychology accuse it of promoting genetic determinism,
panadaptationism (the idea that all behaviors and anatomical features are adaptations),
unfalsifiable hypotheses, distal or ultimate explanations of behavior when proximate
explanations are superior, and malevolent political or moral ideas.[148]

Ethical implications

Critics have argued that evolutionary psychology might be used to justify existing social
hierarchies and reactionary policies.[149][150] It has also been suggested by critics that
evolutionary psychologists' theories and interpretations of empirical data rely heavily on
ideological assumptions about race and gender.[151]

In response to such criticism, evolutionary psychologists often caution against committing the
naturalistic fallacy – the assumption that "what is natural" is necessarily a moral good.[150]
[152][153] However, their caution against committing the naturalistic fallacy has been criticized as
means to stifle legitimate ethical discussions.[150]

Contradictions in models

Some criticisms of evolutionary psychology point at contradictions between different aspects of

adaptive scenarios posited by evolutionary psychology. One example is the evolutionary
psychology model of extended social groups selecting for modern human brains, a contradiction
being that the synaptic function of modern human brains require high amounts of many specific
essential nutrients so that such a transition to higher requirements of the same essential
nutrients being shared by all individuals in a population would decrease the possibility of
forming large groups due to bottleneck foods with rare essential nutrients capping group sizes.
It is mentioned that some insects have societies with different ranks for each individual and that
monkeys remain socially functioning after the removal of most of the brain as additional
arguments against big brains promoting social networking. The model of males as both
providers and protectors is criticized for the impossibility of being in two places at once, the
male cannot both protect his family at home and be out hunting at the same time. In the case of
the claim that a provider male could buy protection service for his family from other males by
bartering food that he had hunted, critics point at the fact that the most valuable food (the food
that contained the rarest essential nutrients) would be different in different ecologies and as
such vegetable in some geographical areas and animal in others, making it impossible for
hunting styles relying on physical strength or risk-taking to be universally of similar value in
bartered food and instead of making it inevitable that in some parts of Africa, food gathered
with no need for major physical strength would be the most valuable to barter for protection. A
contradiction between evolutionary psychology's claim of men needing to be more sexually
visual than women for fast speed of assessing women's fertility than women needed to be able to
assess the male's genes and its claim of male sexual jealousy guarding against infidelity is also
pointed at, as it would be pointless for a male to be fast to assess female fertility if he needed to
assess the risk of there being a jealous male mate and in that case his chances of defeating him
before mating anyway (pointlessness of assessing one necessary condition faster than another
necessary condition can possibly be assessed).[154][155]

Standard social science model

Evolutionary psychology has been entangled in the larger philosophical and social science
controversies related to the debate on nature versus nurture. Evolutionary psychologists
typically contrast evolutionary psychology with what they call the standard social science model
(SSSM). They characterize the SSSM as the "blank slate", "relativist", "social constructionist",
and "cultural determinist" perspective that they say dominated the social sciences throughout
the 20th century and assumed that the mind was shaped almost entirely by culture.[152]

Critics have argued that evolutionary psychologists created a false dichotomy between their own
view and the caricature of the SSSM.[156][157][158] Other critics regard the SSSM as a rhetorical
device or a straw man[153][156][159] and suggest that the scientists whom evolutionary
psychologists associate with the SSSM did not believe that the mind was a blank state devoid of
any natural predispositions.[153]

Reductionism and determinism

Some critics view evolutionary psychology as a form of genetic reductionism and genetic
determinism,[160][161] a common critique being that evolutionary psychology does not address
the complexity of individual development and experience and fails to explain the influence of
genes on behavior in individual cases.[44] Evolutionary psychologists respond that they are
working within a nature-nurture interactionist framework that acknowledges that many
psychological adaptations are facultative (sensitive to environmental variations during
individual development). The discipline is generally not focused on proximate analyses of
behavior, but rather its focus is on the study of distal/ultimate causality (the evolution of
psychological adaptations). The field of behavioral genetics is focused on the study of the
proximate influence of genes on behavior.[162]

Testability of hypotheses

A frequent critique of the discipline is that the hypotheses of evolutionary psychology are
frequently arbitrary and difficult or impossible to adequately test, thus questioning its status as
an actual scientific discipline, for example because many current traits probably evolved to
serve different functions than they do now.[6][163] Thus because there are a potentially infinite
number of alternative explanations for why a trait evolved, critics contend that it is impossible
to determine the exact explanation.[164] While evolutionary psychology hypotheses are difficult
to test, evolutionary psychologists assert that it is not impossible.[165] Part of the critique of the
scientific base of evolutionary psychology includes a critique of the concept of the Environment
of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA). Some critics have argued that researchers know so little
about the environment in which Homo sapiens evolved that explaining specific traits as an
adaption to that environment becomes highly speculative.[166] Evolutionary psychologists
respond that they do know many things about this environment, including the facts that present
day humans' ancestors were hunter-gatherers, that they generally lived in small tribes, etc.[167]
Edward Hagen argues that the human past environments were not radically different in the
same sense as the Carboniferous or Jurassic periods and that the animal and plant taxa of the
era were similar to those of the modern world, as was the geology and ecology. Hagen argues
that few would deny that other organs evolved in the EEA (for example, lungs evolving in an
oxygen rich atmosphere) yet critics question whether or not the brain's EEA is truly knowable,
which he argues constitutes selective scepticism. Hagen also argues that most evolutionary
psychology research is based on the fact that females can get pregnant and males cannot, which
Hagen observes was also true in the EEA.[168][169]

John Alcock describes this as the "No Time Machine Argument", as critics are arguing that since
it is not possible to travel back in time to the EEA, then it cannot be determined what was going
on there and thus what was adaptive. Alcock argues that present-day evidence allows
researchers to be reasonably confident about the conditions of the EEA and that the fact that so
many human behaviours are adaptive in the current environment is evidence that the ancestral
environment of humans had much in common with the present one, as these behaviours would
have evolved in the ancestral environment. Thus Alcock concludes that researchers can make
predictions on the adaptive value of traits.[170] Similarly, Dominic Murphy argues that
alternative explanations cannot just be forwarded but instead need their own evidence and
predictions - if one explanation makes predictions that the others cannot, it is reasonable to
have confidence in that explanation. In addition, Murphy argues that other historical sciences
also make predictions about modern phenomena to come up with explanations about past
phenomena, for example, cosmologists look for evidence for what we would expect to see in the
modern-day if the Big Bang was true, while geologists make predictions about modern
phenomena to determine if an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Murphy argues that if other
historical disciplines can conduct tests without a time machine, then the onus is on the critics to
show why evolutionary psychology is untestable if other historical disciplines are not, as
"methods should be judged across the board, not singled out for ridicule in one context."[164]

Modularity of mind

Evolutionary psychologists generally presume that, like the body, the mind is made up of many
evolved modular adaptations,[171] although there is some disagreement within the discipline
regarding the degree of general plasticity, or "generality," of some modules.[162] It has been
suggested that modularity evolves because, compared to non-modular networks, it would have
conferred an advantage in terms of fitness[172] and because connection costs are lower.[173]

In contrast, some academics argue that it is unnecessary to posit the existence of highly domain
specific modules, and, suggest that the neural anatomy of the brain supports a model based on
more domain general faculties and processes.[174][175] Moreover, empirical support for the
domain-specific theory stems almost entirely from performance on variations of the Wason
selection task which is extremely limited in scope as it only tests one subtype of deductive
reasoning.[176][177]

Cultural rather than genetic development of cognitive tools

Cecilia Heyes has argued that the picture presented by some evolutionary psychology of the
human mind as a collection of cognitive instincts – organs of thought shaped by genetic
evolution over very long time periods[178][18] – does not fit research results. She posits instead
that humans have cognitive gadgets – "special-purpose organs of thought" built in the course of
development through social interaction. Similar criticisms are articulated by Subrena E. Smith
of the University of New Hampshire.[179][180][181]

Response by evolutionary psychologists

Evolutionary psychologists have addressed many of their critics (see, for example, books by
Segerstråle (2000), Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate
and Beyond,[182] Barkow (2005), Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists,[183]
and Alcock (2001), The Triumph of Sociobiology[184]). Among their rebuttals are that some
criticisms are straw men, are based on an incorrect nature versus nurture dichotomy, are based
on misunderstandings of the discipline, etc.[162][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] Robert
Kurzban suggested that "...critics of the field, when they err, are not slightly missing the mark.
Their confusion is deep and profound. It's not like they are marksmen who can't quite hit the
center of the target; they're holding the gun backwards."[192]

See also
▪ Affective neuroscience ▪ Chimpanzee intelligence
▪ Behavioural genetics ▪ Cooperative eye hypothesis
▪ Biocultural evolution ▪ Id, ego, and superego
▪ Biosocial criminology ▪ Intersubjectivity
▪ Collective unconscious ▪ Mirror neuron
▪ Cognitive neuroscience ▪ Noogenesis
▪ Cultural neuroscience ▪ Origin of language
▪ Darwinian Happiness ▪ Origin of speech
▪ Darwinian literary studies ▪ Ovulatory shift hypothesis
▪ Deep social mind ▪ Primate empathy
▪ Dunbar's number ▪ Shadow (psychology)
▪ Evolution of the brain ▪ Simulation theory of empathy
▪ List of evolutionary psychologists ▪ Theory of mind
▪ Evolutionary origin of religions ▪ Neuroethology
▪ Evolutionary psychiatry ▪ Paleolithic diet
▪ Evolutionary psychology and culture ▪ Paleolithic lifestyle
▪ Molecular evolution ▪ r/K selection theory
▪ Primate cognition ▪ Social neuroscience
▪ Hominid intelligence ▪ Sociobiology
▪ Human ethology ▪ Universal Darwinism
▪ Great ape language

Notes
1. Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2010). Psychology ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=emAyzTNy1cUC). Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
 2. Confer et al. 2010; Buss, 2005; Durrant & Ellis, 2003; Pinker, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides,
2005
3. Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (13 January 1997). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" ([Link]
[Link]/[Link]). Center for Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
4. Duntley and Buss 2008
5. Carmen, R.A., et al. (2013). Evolution Integrated Across All Islands of the Human
Behavioral Archipelago: All Psychology as Evolutionary Psychology. EvoS Journal: The
Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 5, pp. 108–26. ISSN 1944-1932 ([Link]
[Link]/search?fq=x0:jrnl&q=n2:1944-1932) PDF ([Link]
ploads/2013/03/Carmen_-[Link])
6. Schacter et al. 2007, pp. 26–27
7. The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Edited by Robin Dunbar and Louise
Barret, Oxford University Press, 2007
8. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 2005
9. Rose, Hilary (2000). Alas, Poor Darwin : Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology (http
s://[Link]/details/alaspoordarwin00hila). Harmony; 1 Amer ed edition (10 October
2000). ISBN 978-0-609-60513-4.
10. Lancaster, Roger (2003). The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture (htt
p://[Link]/[Link]?isbn=9780520236202). Berkeley: University of California
Press. ISBN 9780520236202.
11. Tooby, John; Cosmides, Leda (2005). "Conceptual Foundation of Evolutionary Psychology"
([Link] In Buss, David M (ed.).
The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 5. ISBN 9780470939376.
OCLC 61514485 ([Link] Retrieved 19 July 2021.
12. Buss, David M. "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind" 5th edition. pages
28-29.
13. Buss, David. "Evolutionary Theories in Psychology" ([Link]
ionary-theories-in-psychology). NOBA Textbook series. DEF Publishers. Retrieved 9 April
2021.
14. Chiappe, Dan; MacDonald, Kevin (2005). "The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in
Intelligence and Learning" ([Link] The Journal
of General Psychology. 132 (1): 5–40. doi:10.3200/GENP.132.1.5-40 ([Link]
0%2FGENP.132.1.5-40). PMID 15685958 ([Link]
S2CID 6194752 ([Link] Retrieved 9 April
2021.
15. Nesse, R.M. (2000). Tingergen's Four Questions Organized. Read online ([Link]
[Link]/~nesse/[Link]).
16. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 1–24.
17. "Buss Lab – Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas" ([Link]
[Link]/homepage/Group/BussLAB/[Link]). Retrieved 10 August 2016.
18. "I can't believe it's evolutionary psychology!" ([Link]
ape-of-thought-book-club/i-cant-believe-its-evolutionary-psychology). 7 March 2016.
19. "The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1973" ([Link]
ne/laureates/1973/[Link]). Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 28 July 2007.
20. Schacter (10 December 2010). Psychology 2nd Ed ([Link]
00scha). Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
21. Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2011). Psychology ([Link]
[Link]/details/psychology0000scha) (2 ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. p. 26 ([Link]
[Link]/details/psychology0000scha/page/26).
22. Sterelny, Kim. 2009. In Ruse, Michael & Travis, Joseph (eds) Wilson, Edward O. (Foreword)
Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma.
ISBN 978-0-674-03175-3. p. 314.
23. Trivers, R. L. (1971). "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". The Quarterly Review of
Biology. 46 (1): 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755 ([Link]
JSTOR 2822435 ([Link] S2CID 19027999 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:19027999).
24. Wilson, Edward O. [Link]: The New Synthesis. ([Link]
alog/[Link]) Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. ISBN 0-674-00089-7 p. 4.
25. Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On Human Nature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. p.
x.
26. Buller, David J. Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for
human nature. MIT press, 2006, p.8
27. Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives
on Human Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 287–319.
28. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 25–56.
29. See also "Environment of evolutionary adaptation," a variation of the term used in
Economics, e.g., in Rubin, Paul H (2003). "Folk economics". Southern Economic Journal. 70
(1): 157–71. doi:10.2307/1061637 ([Link] JSTOR 1061637
([Link]
30. Wright 1995
31. Buss, David (2015). Evolutionary psychology : the new science of the mind. Boca Raton,
FL: Psychology Press, an imprint of Taylor and Francis. ISBN 9781317345725.
OCLC 1082202213 ([Link]
32. Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science of
Evolutionary Psychology" ([Link]
Retrieved 15 October 2013.
33. "Despite this difficulty, there have been many careful and informative studies of human
social behavior from an evolutionary perspective. Infanticide, intelligence, marriage patterns,
promiscuity, perception of beauty, bride price, altruism, and the allocation of parental care
have all been explored by testing predictions derived from the idea that conscious and
unconscious behaviours have evolved to maximize inclusive fitness. The findings have been
impressive." "social behaviour, animal." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica
Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 23 January 2011. [1] ([Link]
om/topic/animal-social-behaviour/The-proximate-mechanisms-of-social-behaviour#ref4860
8).
34. Hunt, Lynn (2014). "The Self and Its History". American Historical Review. 119 (5): 1576–86.
doi:10.1093/ahr/119.5.1576 ([Link] quote p 1576.
35. Hunt, "The Self and Its History." p. 1578.
36. Buss et al. 1998
37. Pinker, Steven. (1994) The Language Instinct
38. George C Williams, Adaptation and Natural Selection. p. 4.
39. Buss, D. M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology.
40. Brown, Donald E. (1991) Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
41. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 6.
42. Pinker 2002
43. Barkow et al. 1992
44. "instinct." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia
Britannica, 2011. Web. 18 February 2011. [2] ([Link]
89249/instinct).
45. Bowlby, John (1969). Attachment ([Link] New York:
Basic Books.
46. Symons, Donald (1992). "On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human
behavior" ([Link] The Adapted
Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press.
pp. 137–59 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-19-510107-2.
47. "social behaviour, animal." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 23 January 2011. [3] ([Link]
ecked/topic/550897/animal-social-behaviour).
48. Narvaez et al. 2013.
49. Narvaez et al. 2012.
50. CDC pdf ([Link]
51. Ohman, A.; Mineka, S. (2001). "Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved
module of fear and fear learning" ([Link]
(PDF). Psychological Review. 108 (3): 483–522. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483 (https://
[Link]/10.1037%2F0033-295X.108.3.483). PMID 11488376 ([Link]
ov/11488376). Retrieved 16 June 2008.
52. Pinker, Steve (1999). "How the Mind Works". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
WW Norton. 882 (1): 386–89. Bibcode:1999NYASA.882..119P ([Link]
u/abs/1999NYASA.882..119P). doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x ([Link]
111%2Fj.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x). PMID 10415890 ([Link]
15890). S2CID 222083447 ([Link]
53. Hagen, E.H.; Hammerstein, P. (2006). "Game theory and human evolution: a critique of
some recent interpretations of experimental games". Theoretical Population Biology. 69 (3):
339–48. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.005 ([Link]
PMID 16458945 ([Link]
54. Barrett, Deirdre. Waistland: The R/Evolutionary Science Behind Our Weight and Fitness
Crisis (2007). New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 31–51.
55. Barrett, Deirdre. Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary
Purpose. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010
56. Hagen, E.; Hammerstein, P. (2006). "Game theory and human evolution: A critique of some
recent interpretations of experimental games". Theoretical Population Biology. 69 (3):
339–48. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.09.005 ([Link]
PMID 16458945 ([Link]
57. Van Vugt, Mark & Ahuja, Anjana. Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of
Leadership (2011). New York: Harper Business.
58. Van Vugt, Mark; Ronay, Richard (2014). "The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership".
Organizational Psychology Review. 4: 74–95. doi:10.1177/2041386613493635 ([Link]
rg/10.1177%2F2041386613493635). S2CID 145773713 ([Link]
pusID:145773713).
59. Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology. Chapter 2. Boston: Pearson/A and B.
60. Jacobson, N.C. (2016). Current Evolutionary Adaptiveness of Psychiatric Disorders: Fertility
Rates, Parent-Child Relationship Quality, and Psychiatric Disorders. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology
61. Buss, David (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-48338-9.
62. Eldakar, Omar Tonsi; Wilson, David Sloan; O'Gorman., Rick (2006). "Emotions and actions
associated with altruistic helping and punishment" ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF). Evolutionary Psychology. 4: 274–86. doi:10.1177/147470490600400123 (h
ttps://[Link]/10.1177%2F147470490600400123). S2CID 53991283 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:53991283). Retrieved 15 August 2010.
63. Eldakar, Omar Tonsi; Wilson, David Sloan (2008). "Selfishness as second-order altruism" (ht
tps://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC2383986). Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the USA. 105 (19): 6982–86. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105.6982E (http
s://[Link]/abs/2008PNAS..105.6982E). doi:10.1073/pnas.0712173105 (http
s://[Link]/10.1073%2Fpnas.0712173105). PMC 2383986 ([Link]
c/articles/PMC2383986). PMID 18448681 ([Link]
64. Lima, Francisco W.S.; Hadzibeganovic, Tarik; Stauffer., Dietrich (2009). "Evolution of
ethnocentrism on undirected and directed Barabási-Albert networks". Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and Its Applications. 388 (24): 4999–5004. arXiv:0905.2672 ([Link]
/0905.2672). Bibcode:2009PhyA..388.4999L ([Link]
388.4999L). doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.08.029 ([Link]
29). S2CID 18233740 ([Link]
65. Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
66. * Nichols, S.; Grantham, T. (2000). "Adaptive Complexity and Phenomenal Consciousness"
([Link]
s/evolcons(final).pdf) (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 67 (4): 648–70.
CiteSeerX [Link].9722 ([Link]
9722). doi:10.1086/392859 ([Link] JSTOR 188711 ([Link]
[Link]/stable/188711). S2CID 16484193 ([Link]
4193). Archived from the original ([Link]
nal).pdf) (PDF) on 13 August 2017. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
67. Freeman and Herron. Evolutionary Analysis. 2007. Pearson Education, NJ.
68. Eccles, J. C. (1992). "Evolution of consciousness" ([Link]
s/PMC49701). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 89 (16): 7320–24. Bibcode:1992PNAS...89.7320E ([Link]
bs/1992PNAS...89.7320E). doi:10.1073/pnas.89.16.7320 ([Link]
89.16.7320). JSTOR 2360081 ([Link] PMC 49701 ([Link]
[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC49701). PMID 1502142 ([Link]
gov/1502142).
69. Peters, Frederic "Consciousness as Recursive, Spatiotemporal Self-Location" ([Link]
[Link]/documents/2444/version/1)
70. Baars, Bernard J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. 1993. Cambridge University Press.
71. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 p. 101–21.
72. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 81–101.
73. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 8.
74. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 121–42.
75. Belke, T. W.; Garland Jr, T. (2007). "A brief opportunity to run does not function as a
reinforcer for mice selected for high daily wheel-running rates" ([Link]
/pmc/articles/PMC1986434). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 88 (2):
199–213. doi:10.1901/jeab.2007.62-06 ([Link]
PMC 1986434 ([Link] PMID 17970415
([Link]
76. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 7.
77. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 9.
78. Mealey, Linda (2010). "The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model".
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 18 (3): 523–41. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00039595 ([Link]
[Link]/10.1017%2FS0140525X00039595).
79. Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel ([Link] NY:
Pantheon.
80. Bouchard, T. J. (2004). "Genetic influence on human psychological traits. A survey" ([Link]
[Link]/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/[Link])
(PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 13 (4): 148–51.
doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x ([Link]
x). S2CID 17398272 ([Link] Retrieved
14 September 2014.
81. Pinker, S.; Bloom, P. (1990). "Natural language and natural selection". Behavioral and Brain
Sciences. 13 (4): 707–27. CiteSeerX [Link].4044 ([Link]
summary?doi=[Link].4044). doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061 ([Link]
7%2FS0140525X00081061).
82. Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction.
Cambridge University Press p. 259
83. Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2008). Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. 2nd Ed.
Cambridge University Press. Chapter 10.
84. Diller, K. C. and R. L. Cann 2009. Evidence against a genetic-based revolution in language
50,000 years ago. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, pp. 135–49.
85. Workman & Reader 2008:277 "There are a number of hypotheses suggesting that language
evolved to fulfill a social function such as social grooming (to bind large groups together),
the making of social contracts (to enable monogamy and male provisioning) and the use of
language to impress potential mates. While each of these hypotheses has its merits, each is
still highly speculative and requires more evidence from different areas of research (such as
linguistics and anthropology)."
86. Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction.
Cambridge University Press p. 267
87. W. Tecumseh Fitch (2010) The Evolution of Language. Cambridge University Press pp.
65–66
88. Deacon, Terrence W. (1997) The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the
Brain. W.W. Norton & Co
89. Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction.
Cambridge University Press p. 277
90. Wilson, G.D. Love and Instinct. London: Temple Smith, 1981.
91. Buss 1994
92. Buss & Barnes 1986
93. Li, N. P.; Bailey, J. M.; Kenrick, D. T.; Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). "The necessities and
luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs" ([Link]
55642/[Link]
t%20al.,%[Link]) (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (6): 947–55.
CiteSeerX [Link].1700 ([Link]
1700). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947 ([Link]
PMID 12051582 ([Link] Archived from the original (htt
p://[Link]/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Li%20et%20al.,%
[Link]) (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 16 July 2008.
94. Schmitt and Buss 2001
95. Buss 1988.
 96. Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss (2005) Universal dimensions of human mate preferences;
Personality and Individual Differences 39
97. Buss, David M. (2008). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston,
MA: Omegatype Typography, Inc. p. iv. ISBN 978-0-205-48338-9.
98. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual
Selection and the Descent of Man. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
99. Bateman, A. J. (1948). "Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila" ([Link]
y.1948.21). Heredity. 2 (Pt. 3): 349–821. doi:10.1038/hdy.1948.21 ([Link]
2Fhdy.1948.21). PMID 18103134 ([Link]
100. Buss, D. M.; Schmitt, D. P. (1993). "Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on
human mating". Psychological Review. 100 (2): 204–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204
([Link] PMID 8483982 ([Link]
[Link]/8483982).
101. Buss, D. M. (1989). "Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of
anger and upset". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56 (5): 735–47.
CiteSeerX [Link].3950 ([Link]
3950). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.735 ([Link]
PMID 2724067 ([Link]
102. Browne, Anthony; editor, health (2 September 2000). "Women are promiscuous, naturally"
([Link] Retrieved
10 August 2016 – via The Guardian.
103. Buss 1989
104. Buss et al. 1992
105. Kalat, J. W. (2013). Biological Psychology (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.
ISBN 9781111831004.
106. Haselton, M. G.; Miller, G. F. (2006). "Women's fertility across the cycle increases the short-
term attractiveness of creative intelligence" ([Link]
docs/[Link]) (PDF). Human Nature. 17 (1): 50–73. CiteSeerX [Link].6385 (h
ttps://[Link]/viewdoc/summary?doi=[Link].6385).
doi:10.1007/s12110-006-1020-0 ([Link]
PMID 26181345 ([Link] S2CID 6625639 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:6625639).
107. Gangestad, S. W.; Simpson, J. A.; Cousins, A. J.; Garver-Apgar, C. E.; Christensen, P. N.
(2004). "Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual
cycle" ([Link]
20for%20Male%20behavioral%20display%20change%20across%20the%20menstrual%20c
[Link]) (PDF). Psychological Science. 15 (3): 203–07. CiteSeerX [Link].3266 (https://
[Link]/viewdoc/summary?doi=[Link].3266).
doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x ([Link]
03010.x). PMID 15016293 ([Link] S2CID 9820539 (ht
tps://[Link]/CorpusID:9820539).
108. Wilcox, A. J.; Dunson, D. B.; Weinberg, C. R.; Trussell, J.; Baird, D. D. (2001). "Likelihood of
conception with a single act of intercourse: Providing benchmark rates for assessment of
post-coital contraceptives" ([Link] Contraception. 63 (4):
211–15. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00191-3 ([Link]
01%2900191-3). PMID 11376648 ([Link]
109. Miller, G. F. (2000b) The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human
nature. Anchor Books: New York.
110. Daly, Matin, and Margo I. Wilson. (1999)
111. Daly & Wilson 1998
112. "Evolutionary Psychology – Inclusive Fitness" ([Link]
ary/[Link]). Retrieved 10 August 2016.
113. Dawkins, Richard, "The Extended Phenotype", Oxford University Press 1982 (Chapter 9)
114. West, Stuart A.; El Mouden, Claire; Gardner, Andy (2011). "Sixteen common
misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans" ([Link]
20170812085608/[Link]
(PDF). Evolution and Human Behavior. 32 (4): 231–62. CiteSeerX [Link].3318 ([Link]
[Link]/viewdoc/summary?doi=[Link].3318).
doi:10.1016/[Link].2010.08.001 ([Link]
08.001). Archived from the original ([Link]
Gardner_11.pdf) (PDF) on 12 August 2017. Retrieved 25 October 2017.
115. Villinger, J. (2012). "Social discrimination by quantitative assessment of immunogenetic
similarity" ([Link] Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1746): 4368–4374. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1279
([Link] PMC 3479794 ([Link]
mc/articles/PMC3479794). PMID 22951741 ([Link]
116. Lieberman, D.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (February 2007). "The architecture of human kin
detection" ([Link] Nature. 445 (7129):
727–31. Bibcode:2007Natur.445..727L ([Link]
27L). doi:10.1038/nature05510 ([Link] PMC 3581061 (ht
tps://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC3581061). PMID 17301784 ([Link]
[Link]/17301784).
117. Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.
118. Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. NY: Prentice Hall
119. Workman & Reader (2008), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
120. Nowak, MA; Sigmund, K (1998). "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring". Nature.
393 (6685): 573–77. Bibcode:1998Natur.393..573N ([Link]
Natur.393..573N). doi:10.1038/31225 ([Link] PMID 9634232 (h
ttps://[Link]/9634232). S2CID 4395576 ([Link]
CorpusID:4395576).
121. Fowler, James H. (22 September 2005). "Human cooperation: Second-order free-riding
problem solved?" ([Link] Nature. 437 (7058): E8,
discussion E8–9. Bibcode:2005Natur.437E...8F ([Link]
ur.437E...8F). doi:10.1038/nature04201 ([Link]
PMID 16177738 ([Link] S2CID 4425399 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:4425399).
122. Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall.
2003. ISBN 978-0-13-111529-3, Chapter 14, pp. 323–52.
123. Bowles, S (2009). "Did Warfare among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherer Groups Affect the
Evolution of Human Social Behaviors". Science. 324 (5932): 1293–98.
Bibcode:2009Sci...324.1293B ([Link]
doi:10.1126/science.1168112 ([Link]
PMID 19498163 ([Link] S2CID 33816122 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:33816122).
124. Gintis, H. (2000). "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality". Journal of Theoretical Biology.
206 (2): 169–79. CiteSeerX [Link].7226 ([Link]
y?doi=[Link].7226). doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111 ([Link]
11). PMID 10966755 ([Link]
125. Henrich, J.; Chudek, M. (2012). "Understanding the research program". Behavioral and
Brain Sciences. 35 (1): 29–30. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11001397 ([Link]
2FS0140525X11001397). PMID 22289319 ([Link]
S2CID 39959479 ([Link]
126. Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1989). "Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part
I. Theoretical considerations". Ethology and Sociobiology. 10 (1–3): 29–49.
doi:10.1016/0162-3095(89)90012-5 ([Link]
2-5).
127. Santrock, W. John (2005). A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p. 62.
128. Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In S. T.
Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th Edition, Vol. 2,
pp. 761–96). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
129. Schaller, M., Simpson, J. A., & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.) (2006). Evolution and social psychology.
New York: Psychology Press.
130. Van Vugt, Mark; Schaller, Mark (2008). "Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An
introduction". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 12: 1–6.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.1 ([Link]
131. Van Vugt, Mark & Kameda, Tatsuya. Evolution and Groups. In J. Levine Group Processes
Chapter 12 (2012). New York: Psychology Press.
132. "Humans Evolved 'Game Face' As Plea for Help, Study Suggests" ([Link]
om/[Link]). Retrieved 10 August 2016.
133. Nesse, R; Williams, George C. (1996). Why We Get Sick. NY: Vintage. (adaptationist
perspective to both physiological and psychological dysfunctions)
134. Workman & Reader (2008), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press,
135. Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (1999). "Toward an evolutionary taxonomy of treatable conditions".
Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 108 (3): 453–64. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.453 (http
s://[Link]/10.1037%2F0021-843X.108.3.453). PMID 10466269 ([Link]
[Link]/10466269).
136. Andrews, P. W.; Thomson, J. A. (July 2009). "The bright side of being blue: Depression as
an adaptation for analyzing complex problems" ([Link]
MC2734449). Psychol. Rev. 116 (3): 620–654. doi:10.1037/a0016242 ([Link]
37%2Fa0016242). PMC 2734449 ([Link]
PMID 19618990 ([Link]
137. Raison, C.L, Miller, A. N. (2012). The evolutionary significance of depression in Pathogen
Host Defense (PATHOS-D) Molecular Psychiatry 1–23. PDF ([Link]
nal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/[Link]).
138. Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 239–56.
139. O'Connell, H (2004). "Evolutionary theory in psychiatry and psychology" ([Link]
017%2Fs0790966700008193). Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. 21 (1): 37.
doi:10.1017/s0790966700008193 ([Link]
PMID 30308732 ([Link]
140. Rose, S. (2001). "Revisiting evolutionary psychology and psychiatry" ([Link]
2%2Fbjp.179.6.558-b). The British Journal of Psychiatry. 179 (6): 558–59.
doi:10.1192/bjp.179.6.558-b ([Link] PMID 11731363
([Link]
141. Aurelio José Figueredo, Paul Robert Gladden, Zachary Hohman. The evolutionary
psychology of criminal behaviour. In Roberts, S. C. (2011). Roberts, S. Craig (ed.). Applied
Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso
/9780199586073.001.0001 ([Link]
001.0001). ISBN 9780199586073.
142. Ellis, Lee (2005). "A Theory Explaining Biological Correlates of Criminality". European
Journal of Criminology. 2 (3): 287–315. doi:10.1177/1477370805054098 ([Link]
177%2F1477370805054098). ISSN 1477-3708 ([Link]
S2CID 53587552 ([Link]
143. Hagen, Edward H. "Evolutionary Psychology FAQ" ([Link]
n/[Link]). [Link]. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
144. Sosis, R.; Alcorta, C. (2003). "Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: the evolution of religious
behavior". Evolutionary Anthropology. 12 (6): 264–74. doi:10.1002/evan.10120 ([Link]
rg/10.1002%2Fevan.10120). S2CID 443130 ([Link]
30).
145. Lienard, P.; Boyer, P. (2006). "Whence collective rituals? A cultural selection model of
ritualized behavior". American Anthropologist. 108 (4): 824–27.
doi:10.1525/aa.2006.108.4.814 ([Link]
146. Lopez, Anthony C.; McDermott, Rose; Bang Petersen, Michael (2011). "States in Mind:
Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and International Politics". International Security. 36 (2):
61–66. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00056 ([Link]
S2CID 57562816 ([Link]
147. Lopez, Anthony C.; McDermott, Rose; Bang Petersen, Michael (2011). "States in Mind:
Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and International Politics". International Security. 36 (2):
66–82. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00056 ([Link]
S2CID 57562816 ([Link]
148. Kurzban, Robert. Alas poor evolutionary psychology ([Link]
html). The Human Nature Review 2002 Volume 2: 99–109 (14 March ). Retrieved 14 July
2013.
149. Rose, Hilary; Rose, Steven (2000). "Introduction" ([Link]
00hila/page/1). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology. New York:
Harmony Books. pp. 1–13 ([Link]
ISBN 978-0-609-60513-4.
150. Wilson, David Sloan; Dietrich, Eric; Clark, Anne B. (2003). "On the inappropriate use of the
naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology" ([Link]
4/[Link] (PDF).
Biology and Philosophy. 18 (5): 669–81. doi:10.1023/A:1026380825208 ([Link]
023%2FA%3A1026380825208). S2CID 30891026 ([Link]
D:30891026). Archived from the original ([Link]
nt/uploads/2010/01/[Link]) (PDF) on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
151. Caporael, Linnda R.; Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991). "The Quest for Human Nature: Social and
Scientific Issues in Evolutionary Psychology". Journal of Social Issues. 47 (3): 1–9.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb01819.x ([Link]
19.x).
152. Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate. NY: Penguin
153. Levy, Neil (2004). "Evolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social
Science Model". Biology and Philosophy. 19 (3): 459–72. CiteSeerX [Link].9290 (https://
[Link]/viewdoc/summary?doi=[Link].9290).
doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036111.64561.63 ([Link]
6111.64561.63). S2CID 10126372 ([Link]
154. WE Frankenhuis Environmental unpredictability, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological
Science, 2016 - Springer
155. Douglas T Kenrick, VIadas Griskevicius, Omar Mahmoud The rational animal: How
evolution made us smarter than we think, 2016
156. Richardson, Robert C. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology As Maladapted Psychology (https://
[Link]/books?id=KeqiKNFa3YgC&pg=PA176). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT
Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-262-18260-7.
157. Wallace, Brendan (2010). Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work.
Exeter: Imprint Academic. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-84540-207-5.
158. Solomon, Sheldon; et al. (2004). "Human Awareness of Mortality and the Evolution of
Culture" ([Link] In Schaller,
Mark; Crandall, Christian S (eds.). The Psychological Foundations of Culture. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-8058-3839-8.
159. Sampson, Geoffrey (2009). The "Language Instinct" Debate: Revised Edition ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=N0zJNPuXTZMC&pg=PA134). London: Continuum. pp. 134–45.
ISBN 978-0-8264-7384-4.
160. Maiers, Wolfgang (2003). "The Bogus Claim of Evolutionary Psychology" ([Link]
[Link]/books?id=uA5VIXQmYQUC&pg=PA426). In Stephenson, Niamh (ed.). Theoretical
Psychology: Critical Contributions ([Link]
426). Concord, Ont.: Captus University Publications. pp. 426–35 ([Link]
heoreticalpsych2001inte/page/426). ISBN 978-1-55322-055-8.
161. Plotkin, Henry. 2004 Evolutionary thought in Psychology: A Brief History. Blackwell. p. 150.
162. Confer, J. C.; Easton, J. A.; Fleischman, D. S.; Goetz, C. D.; Lewis, D. M. G.; Perilloux, C.;
Buss, D. M. (2010). "Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and
limitations" ([Link]
y_psychology_AP_2010.pdf) (PDF). American Psychologist. 65 (2): 110–26.
CiteSeerX [Link].8691 ([Link]
8691). doi:10.1037/a0018413 ([Link] PMID 20141266 (http
s://[Link]/20141266).
163. Ryle, Anthony (2005). "The Relevance of Evolutionary Psychology for Psychotherapy".
British Journal of Psychotherapy. 21 (3): 375–88. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0118.2005.tb00225.x (h
ttps://[Link]/10.1111%2Fj.1752-0118.2005.tb00225.x).
164. Murphy, Dominic. "Adaptationism and psychological explanation." In Evolutionary
Psychology, pp. 161-184. Springer, Boston, MA, 2003.
165. "Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a
challenging task, but not an impossible one" (Buss et al. 1998; Pinker, 1997b).
166. Plotkin, Henry. 2004 Evolutionary thought in Psychology: A Brief History. Blackwell. p. 149.
167. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), David M. Buss, Chapter 1, pp. 5–67,
Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides
168. Hagen, Edward H. Invariant world, invariant mind. Evolutionary psychology and its critics. (h
ttps://[Link]/web/20190222082923/[Link]
[Link]) (2014).
169. Hagen, Edward H. Controversial issues in evolutionary psychology. ([Link]
edu/viewdoc/download?doi=[Link].5642&rep=rep1&type=pdf) The handbook of
evolutionary psychology (2005): 145-173.
170. Maryanski, A., Machalek, R. and Turner, J.H., 2015. Handbook on evolution and society:
Toward an evolutionary social science. Routledge. pp.161-163
171. Kurzban, Robert (2011). Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular
Mind. NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691146744.
172. Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (1992). "Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange". The
Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. 163–228.
173. Clune, Jeff; Mouret, Jean-Baptiste; Lipson, Hod (2013). "The evolutionary origins of
modularity" ([Link] Proceedings of the
Royal Society. 280 (1755): 20122863. arXiv:1207.2743 ([Link]
doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2863 ([Link] PMC 3574393 (ht
tps://[Link]/pmc/articles/PMC3574393). PMID 23363632 ([Link]
[Link]/23363632).
174. Panksepp, Jaak; Panksepp, Jules B. (2000). "The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology"
([Link]
n_sins.pdf) (PDF). Evolution and Cognition. 6 (2): 108–31. Retrieved 15 May 2012.
175. Buller, David J.; Hardcastle, Valerie Gray (2005). "Modularity" ([Link]
ks?id=dQ5MGDvn8eIC&pg=PA127). In Buller, David J. (ed.). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary
Psychology And The Persistent Quest For Human Nature ([Link]
gminds00davi/page/127). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 127–201 ([Link]
[Link]/details/adaptingminds00davi/page/127). ISBN 978-0-262-02579-9.
176. Davies, Paul Sheldon; Fetzer, James H.; Foster, Thomas R. (1995). "Logical reasoning and
domain specificity". Biology and Philosophy. 10 (1): 1–37. doi:10.1007/BF00851985 (https://
[Link]/10.1007%2FBF00851985). S2CID 83429932 ([Link]
sID:83429932).
177. O'Brien, David; Manfrinati, Angela (2010). "The Mental Logic Theory of Conditional
Propositions" ([Link] In Oaksford,
Mike; Chater, Nick (eds.). Cognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human
Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 39–54. ISBN 978-0-19-923329-8.
178. Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (13 January 1997). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" (htt
p://[Link]/[Link]). [Link].
179. Smith, Subrena (15 January 2020). "Why Evolutionary Psychology (Probably) Isn't Possible"
([Link] This View
of Life. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
180. Smith, Subrena (2020). "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?" ([Link]
cle/10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4). Biological Theory. 15: 39–49.
doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4 ([Link]
S2CID 213564464 ([Link] – via Springer.
181. "Subrena E Smith, University of New Hampshire Faculty Profile" ([Link]
n/subrena-smith). University of New Hampshire Faculty Profile. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
182. Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for
science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-850505-1.
183. Jerome H. Barkow, (2005), Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
184. Alcock, John (2001). The Triumph of Sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-516335-3
185. Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter (2000). Defenders of the truth : the battle for
science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-19-850505-1.
186. Barkow, Jerome (Ed.). (2006) Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513002-7
187. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L. & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Resolving the debate on innate ideas:
Learnability constraints and the evolved interpenetration of motivational and conceptual
functions. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S. (Eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and
Content. NY: Oxford University Press.
188. Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology by Edward H. Hagen, Institute for
Theoretical Biology, Berlin. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology
(pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
189. The Never-Ending Misconceptions About Evolutionary Psychology: Persistent Falsehoods
About Evolutionary Psychology ([Link]
200906/the-never-ending-misconceptions-about-evolutionary-psychology) by Gad Saad,
Psychology Today blog.
190. Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! … and here's why … Psihologijske
Teme (Psychological Topics); Special Issue on Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 181–202.
"Archived copy" ([Link]
geherg/ep_not_evil.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
g/ep_not_evil.pdf) (PDF) on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 9 May 2008.
191. What Anti-Evolutionary Psychologists are Really Worried About ([Link]
[Link]/blog/cui-bono/201110/what-anti-evolutionary-psychologists-are-really-worried-about)
by John Johnson, Psychology Today blog.
192. Kurzban, R. (2013). This One Goes to Eleven, PZ Myers, and Other Punch Lines. ([Link]
[Link]/kurzbanepblog/2013/07/11/this-one-goes-to-eleven-pz-myers-and-other-pu
nch-lines/) Evolutionary Psychology.

References
▪ Barkow, Jerome H. (2006). Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists. Oxford
University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-513002-7.
▪ Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and
the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
▪ Bowlby, John (1969). Attachment ([Link] New York:
Basic Books.
▪ Buss, D. M.; Barnes, M. (1986). "Preferences in human mate selection" ([Link]
[Link]/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/prefs_mate_selection_1986_jpsp.pdf)
(PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (3): 559–70.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559 ([Link]
▪ Buss, D. M. (1988). "From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American
undergraduates" ([Link]
nce_to_Violence_1988.pdf) (PDF). Ethology and Sociobiology. 9 (5): 291–317.
doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90010-6 ([Link]
0-6). hdl:2027.42/27156 ([Link]
▪ Buss, D. M. (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures" ([Link]
[Link]) (PDF). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12: 1–49.
doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992 ([Link]
▪ Buss, D. M.; Larsen, R. J.; Westen, D.; Semmelroth, J. (1992). "Sex differences in jealousy:
Evolution, physiology, and psychology" ([Link]
BussLAB/pdffiles/[Link]) (PDF). Psychological Science. 3 (4):
251–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x ([Link]
92.tb00038.x). S2CID 27388562 ([Link]
▪ Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic
Books.
▪ Buss, David M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind. Boston:
Pearson/A and B. ISBN 978-0-205-37071-9.
▪ Buss, David M.; Haselton, Martie G.; Shackelford, Todd K.; Bleske, April L.; Wakefield,
Jerome C. (1998). "Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels" ([Link]
omm/haselton/webdocs/[Link]). American Psychologist. 53 (5): 533–48.
CiteSeerX [Link].5882 ([Link]
5882). doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.5.533 ([Link]
PMID 9612136 ([Link] Retrieved 29 August 2011.
▪ Clarke, Murray (2004). Reconstructing reason and representation ([Link]
/reconstructingre0000clar). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
ISBN 978-0-262-03322-0.
▪ Confer, Easton, Fleischman, Goetz, Lewis, Perilloux & Buss Evolutionary Psychology (http://
[Link]/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/evolutionary_psychology_AP
_2010.pdf), American Psychologist, 2010.
▪ Duntley, J.D.; Buss, D.M. (2008). "Evolutionary psychology is a metatheory for psychology"
([Link]
(PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 19: 30–34. doi:10.1080/10478400701774105 ([Link]
0.1080%2F10478400701774105). S2CID 12267555 ([Link]
ID:12267555).
▪ Durrant, R., & Ellis, B.J. (2003). Evolutionary Psychology. In M. Gallagher & R.J. Nelson
(Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume Three: Biological Psychology
(pp. 1–33). New York: Wiley & Sons.
▪ Evan, Dylan (2000). Introducing Evolutionary Psychology. Lanham, MD: Totem Books USA.
ISBN 978-1-84046-043-8.
▪ Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary psychology. Prentice Hall.
2003. ISBN 978-0-13-111529-3
▪ Hunt, Lynn (2014). "The Self and Its History". American Historical Review. 119 (5): 1576–86.
doi:10.1093/ahr/119.5.1576 ([Link]
▪ Joyce, Richard (2006). The Evolution of Morality (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in
Biology and Psychology) ([Link] Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-10112-7.
▪ Miller, Geoffrey P. (2000). The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of
human nature ([Link] Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.
ISBN 978-0-385-49516-5.
▪ Narvaez, D; Wang, L; Gleason, T; Cheng, Y; Lefever, J; Deng, L (2012). "The Evolved
Developmental Niche and sociomoral outcomes in Chinese three-year-olds". European
Journal of Developmental Psychology. 10 (2): 106–127.
doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.761606 ([Link]
S2CID 143327355 ([Link]
▪ Narvaez, D; Gleason, T; Wang, L; Brooks, J; Lefever, J; Cheng, Y (2013). "The Evolved
Development Niche: Longitudinal effects of caregiving practices on early childhood
psychosocial development". Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 28 (4): 759–773.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2013.07.003 ([Link]
▪ Nesse, R.M. (2000). Tingergen's Four Questions Organized ([Link]
/~nesse/[Link]).
▪ Nesse, R; Williams, George C. (1996). Why We Get Sick. NY: Vintage.
▪ Pinker, Steven (1997). How the mind works ([Link]
k). New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-04535-2.
▪ Pinker, Steven (2002). The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature ([Link]
rg/details/blankslatemodern00pink). New York, N.Y: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-03151-1.
▪ Richards, Janet C. (2000). Human nature after Darwin: a philosophical introduction. New
York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-21243-4.
▪ Ryan, Christopher; Jethá, Cacilda (2010). Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern
Sexuality. New York, NY: Harper. ISBN 9780062002938. OCLC 668224740 ([Link]
[Link]/oclc/668224740).
▪ Santrock, John W. (2005). The Topical Approach to Life-Span Development(3rd ed.). New
York, N.Y: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-322626-2.
▪ Schacter, Daniel L, Daniel Wegner and Daniel Gilbert. 2007. Psychology. Worth Publishers.
ISBN 0-7167-5215-8 ISBN 9780716752158.
▪ Schmitt, D. P.; Buss, D. M. (2001). "Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for
infiltrating existing relationships" ([Link]
B/pdffiles/Human_Mate_Poaching_2001.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 80 (6): 894–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894 ([Link]
0022-3514.80.6.894). PMID 11414373 ([Link]
▪ Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D.
M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Full text ([Link]
h/cep/papers/[Link])
▪ Wilson, Edward Osborne ("E. O.") (1975). Sociobiology: the new synthesis ([Link]
rg/details/sociobiologynews00wilsrich). Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press. ISBN 978-0674816213.
▪ Wright, Robert C. M. (1995). The moral animal: evolutionary psychology and everyday life.
New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76399-4.

Further reading
▪ Buss, D. M. (1995). "Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science" (h
ttp://[Link]/homepage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/ANewParadigmforPsyc
[Link]) (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 6: 1–30. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1 ([Link]
org/10.1207%2Fs15327965pli0601_1).
▪ Confer, J.C.; Easton, J.A.; Fleischman, D.S.; Goetz, C. D.; Lewis, D.M.G.; Perilloux, C.;
Buss, D. M. (2010). "Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and
Limitations" ([Link]
ry_psychology_AP_2010.pdf) (PDF). American Psychologist. 65 (2): 110–26.
CiteSeerX [Link].8691 ([Link]
8691). doi:10.1037/a0018413 ([Link] PMID 20141266 (http
s://[Link]/20141266).
▪ Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (2008). "Evolutionary Psychology" ([Link]
books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC). In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Evolution Psychology. The
Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 158–61.
doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n99 ([Link]
ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151 ([Link]
OCLC 750831024 ([Link]
▪ Heylighen F. (2012). "Evolutionary Psychology ([Link]
[Link])", in: A. Michalos (ed.): Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research
(Springer, Berlin).
▪ Kennair, L. E. O. (2002). "Evolutionary psychology: An emerging integrative perspective
within the science and practice of psychology" ([Link]
tml). Human Nature Review. 2: 17–61.
 ▪ Medicus, G. (2005). "Evolutionary Theory of Human Sciences" ([Link]
~c720126/humanethologie/ws/medicus/block1/[Link]). pp. 9, 10, 11. Retrieved
8 September 2009.
▪ Gerhard Medicus (2015). Being Human – Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body
and Mind. Berlin: VWB ([Link]
t/psychologie/humanethologie/einfuehrung-in-die-humanethologie/dateien/medicus_engl_co
[Link]) ISBN 978-3-86135-584-7
▪ Oikkonen, Venla: Gender, Sexuality and Reproduction in Evolutionary Narratives. London:
Routledge, 2013. ISBN 978-0-415-63599-8

External links
▪ [Link] ([Link] Collaborative effort to catalog human psychological
adaptations
▪ Evolutionary Psychology ([Link]
y_Psychology) at Curlie
▪ What Is Evolutionary Psychology? by Clinical Evolutionary Psychologist Dale Glaebach (htt
p://[Link]/interests/mind/glabachep/[Link]).
▪ Evolutionary Psychology – Approaches in Psychology ([Link]
[Link])

Academic societies
▪ Human Behavior and Evolution Society ([Link] international society
dedicated to using evolutionary theory to study human nature
▪ The International Society for Human Ethology ([Link]
2/[Link] promotes ethological perspectives on the study
of humans worldwide
▪ European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association ([Link] an
interdisciplinary society that supports the activities of European researchers with an interest
in evolutionary accounts of human cognition, behavior and society
▪ The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences ([Link] an international
and interdisciplinary association of scholars, scientists, and policymakers concerned with
evolutionary, genetic, and ecological knowledge and its bearing on political behavior, public
policy and ethics.
▪ Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law ([Link] a scholarly association
dedicated to fostering interdisciplinary exploration of issues at the intersection of law,
biology, and evolutionary theory
▪ The New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology ([Link]
[Link]/web/20070427064334/[Link] aims to foster research and
education into the interdisciplinary nexus of cognitive science and evolutionary studies
▪ The NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society ([Link] regional
society dedicated to encouraging scholarship and dialogue on the topic of evolutionary
psychology
▪ Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society ([Link]
p://[Link]/) researchers that investigate the active role that females have had in
human evolution

Journals
 ▪ Evolutionary Psychology – free access online scientific journal
▪ Evolution and Human Behavior – journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (htt
p://[Link])
▪ Evolutionary Psychological Science - An international, interdisciplinary forum for original
research papers that address evolved psychology. Spans social and life sciences,
anthropology, philosophy, criminology, law and the humanities.
▪ Politics and the Life Sciences ([Link] – an
interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published by the Association for Politics and the Life
Sciences ([Link]
▪ Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective ([Link]
sciences/anthropology+and+archaeology/journal/12110) – advances the interdisciplinary
investigation of the biological, social, and environmental factors that underlie human
behavior. It focuses primarily on the functional unity in which these factors are continuously
and mutually interactive. These include the evolutionary, biological, and sociological
processes as they interact with human social behavior.
▪ Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition ([Link]
g/web/20070705175147/[Link] – devoted to theoretical
advances in the fields of biology and cognition, with an emphasis on the conceptual
integration afforded by evolutionary and developmental approaches.
▪ Evolutionary Anthropology ([Link]
[Link]/cgi-bin/jtoc?ID=38641)
▪ Behavioral and Brain Sciences ([Link]
[Link]/) – interdisciplinary articles in psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology,
cognitive science, artificial intelligence, linguistics and philosophy. About 30% of the articles
have focused on evolutionary analyses of behavior.
▪ Evolution and Development ([Link]
[Link]/journal/118546131/home) – research relevant to interface of evolutionary and
developmental biology
▪ The Evolutionary Review – Art, Science, and Culture ([Link]
[Link])

Videos
▪ Brief video clip from the "Evolution" PBS Series ([Link]
Rim-hs)
▪ TED talk ([Link]
[Link]) by Steven Pinker about his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human
Nature
▪ RSA talk ([Link] by evolutionary psychologist
Robert Kurzban on modularity of mind, based on his book Why Everyone (Else) is a
Hypocrite
▪ Richard Dawkins' lecture on natural selection and evolutionary psychology ([Link]
[Link]/watch?v=BzJUCG7L9I4)
▪ Evolutionary Psychology – Steven Pinker & Frans de Waal ([Link]
h?v=z3X5AuKE9rg) Audio recording
▪ Stone Age Minds: A conversation with evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John
Tooby ([Link]
▪ Margaret Mead and Samoa ([Link]
27&q=margaret+mead+and+samoa&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex
=0). Review of the nature versus nurture debate triggered by Mead's book "Coming of Age
in Samoa."
▪ "Evolutionary Psychology" ([Link] In Our Time, BBC
 Radio 4 discussion with Janet Radcliffe Richards, Nicholas Humphrey and Steven Rose
(Nov. 2, 2000)

Retrieved from "[Link]

This page was last edited on 24 September 2021, at 05:01 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.