<p><em>This is a bit of a quick answer and hopefully others will provide a more comprehensive response.</em></p>

<p>The number of reflexes that exist in humans is arguably a separate issue to the support for evolutionary psychology. The answer below focuses specifically on the support for evolutionary psychology in academic psychology.</p>

<p>Almost all researchers in psychology would agree that <strong>evolutionary processes have shaped what it means to be human</strong>. A good example of a well-developed theory is <a href="http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/">ACT-R</a>, which provides a model of cognition. An underlying assumption of the theory is that the nature of the underlying structure of cognition has evolved to minimise the consumption of computational and biological resources (although you're better off reading ACT-R material directly to understand how they describe the interface of genetic and environmental adaptation, e.g., Anderson 1991). This still leaves many issues regarding how to conceptualise human nature and the extent of human plasticity. </p>

<p><strong>However, "just so" arguments made in the name of evolutionary psychology are generally not respected in academic psychology</strong>. For example, Someone might say that women are better at multitasking because throughout evolution men's behaviour has required singularity of purpose in hunting and mate seeking, whereas women have had to juggle competing tasks of child rearing, looking after the camp, and so on. Of course, that's all rubbish. I just made that argument up out of nothing. Such an argument takes an observation, possibly not even true in the first place, and then seeks to find some vaguely plausible evolutionary story to justify it. It's a "just so" argument. 
You can see further discussion of critiques of evolutionary psychology <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology">here</a>.</p>

<h3>References</h3>

<ul>
<li>Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 471-517. <a href="http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf1-cg/readings/Anderson_1991_adaptive_cognition.pdf">PDF</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-08T10:29:04.007Z
Thanks for your answer. I didn't know about ACT-R, I'll look into it. And indeed, I think we all agree that "just-so" arguments sometimes found in evolutionary arguments (psychological or otherwise) are simply bad science.
tokland
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-08T10:14:03.640Z
2013-04-09T00:59:58.230Z
2013-04-09T00:59:58.230Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p>One area in which, I believe, evolutionary psychology gets a fair degree of respect is in social psychology, and in particular in the study of cooperative behavior.</p>
<p>You might wish to check out</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Axelrod (1981) The Evolution of Cooperation</p>
<p>Nowak (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-09-21T11:50:56.443Z
Evolutionary psychology (EP) does not at all seem to be on the wane - David Buss’ 6th edition of his Handbook to Evolutionary Psychology was released 2 months ago. In terms of other branches of psychology, neuroscientists, neurobiologists and the like typically anchor their findings in EP. For example they will hypothesise that function x may be ‘adaptive’ or relate to ‘sexual selection ‘ etc. Genetics, for example, is inherently founded on evolutionary theory and hypotheses derived therefrom (inc from twin studies) inform behavioural treatments today
Nick H
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-11T04:50:37.983Z
Interesting, but note that OP is asking about the status of evolutionary psychology *today*, not in 1981. I suppose what you're saying is that these articles commonly appear on social psych syllabi today?
Jeff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-11T11:02:09.493Z
The Axelrod work is foundational for the Nowak stuff and the latter is fairly recent as far as I know.
baixiwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-13T05:36:53.583Z
Not sure if Nowak is the most relevant source for psychologists, especially not that book. I think Pinker might be more relevant.
Artem Kaznatcheev
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-13T15:05:09.040Z
All I can say is that we DID read Nowak in my social psych class, and not Pinker, though to be fair, I'm not a social psychologist and this was a class specifically about agent-based modeling in social psych, so it might be a special interest thing.
baixiwei
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-11T03:47:46.270Z
2013-04-11T03:47:46.270Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
baixiwei
<p>Having an interest in human psychology (but no formal training) I decided to take  Coursera's <a href="https://class.coursera.org/psy-001/lecture/index" rel="nofollow">Introduction to Psychology as a Science</a>. Here's a snippet from an <a href="https://class.coursera.org/psy-001/lecture/5" rel="nofollow">introductory lecture</a> (it requires signup, so I'll paste the transcription):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Statement: "Much of human behavior is instinctive."   </p>
  
  <p>Answer: "No, we have very few instinctive behaviors. There are some reflexes that
  young infants have, like for example the reflex to suck if you put
  something in their mouth or if you tickle the bottom of their feet,
  their toes will spread out. Those are reflexes that go away as the
  child gets older. We certainly have genetic predisposition to do
  things in a certain way. But, instinct, species specific behaviors
  that lower animals have, are very rare in human behavior."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This emphatic assertion really surprised me. It was my understanding that -at least at some degree- the fundamentals of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology" rel="nofollow">evolutionary psychology</a> had influenced "traditional psychology" over the years (not as explanation of every human behavior, sure, but certainly more than to explain the sucking reflex).</p>

<p>So here is the question: <strong>has evolutionary psychology found its place in universities (syllabus, articles, ...) or is it pretty much ignored in academia?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-11T13:32:50.717Z
Also see the [Wikipedia list of evolutionary psychology programs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_research_groups_and_centers)
Jeff
<evolution>
What is the status of evolutionary psychology in academia today?
tokland
# What is the status of evolutionary psychology in academia today?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-08)

Having an interest in human psychology (but no formal training) I decided to take Coursera's [Introduction to Psychology as a Science](https://class.coursera.org/psy-001/lecture/index). Here's a snippet from an [introductory lecture](https://class.coursera.org/psy-001/lecture/5) (it requires signup, so I'll paste the transcription):

> Statement: "Much of human behavior is instinctive."
>
> Answer: "No, we have very few instinctive behaviors. There are some reflexes that
> young infants have, like for example the reflex to suck if you put
> something in their mouth or if you tickle the bottom of their feet,
> their toes will spread out. Those are reflexes that go away as the
> child gets older. We certainly have genetic predisposition to do
> things in a certain way. But, instinct, species specific behaviors
> that lower animals have, are very rare in human behavior."

This emphatic assertion really surprised me. It was my understanding that -at least at some degree- the fundamentals of [evolutionary psychology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology) had influenced "traditional psychology" over the years (not as explanation of every human behavior, sure, but certainly more than to explain the sucking reflex).

So here is the question: **has evolutionary psychology found its place in universities (syllabus, articles, ...) or is it pretty much ignored in academia?**

**Tags:** evolution

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Also see the [Wikipedia list of evolutionary psychology programs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_research_groups_and_centers)  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-04-08. Score: 8

*This is a bit of a quick answer and hopefully others will provide a more comprehensive response.*

The number of reflexes that exist in humans is arguably a separate issue to the support for evolutionary psychology. The answer below focuses specifically on the support for evolutionary psychology in academic psychology.

Almost all researchers in psychology would agree that **evolutionary processes have shaped what it means to be human**. A good example of a well-developed theory is [ACT-R](http://act-r.psy.cmu.edu/), which provides a model of cognition. An underlying assumption of the theory is that the nature of the underlying structure of cognition has evolved to minimise the consumption of computational and biological resources (although you're better off reading ACT-R material directly to understand how they describe the interface of genetic and environmental adaptation, e.g., Anderson 1991). This still leaves many issues regarding how to conceptualise human nature and the extent of human plasticity.

**However, "just so" arguments made in the name of evolutionary psychology are generally not respected in academic psychology**. For example, Someone might say that women are better at multitasking because throughout evolution men's behaviour has required singularity of purpose in hunting and mate seeking, whereas women have had to juggle competing tasks of child rearing, looking after the camp, and so on. Of course, that's all rubbish. I just made that argument up out of nothing. Such an argument takes an observation, possibly not even true in the first place, and then seeks to find some vaguely plausible evolutionary story to justify it. It's a "just so" argument.
You can see further discussion of critiques of evolutionary psychology [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology).

### References

* Anderson, J. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 471-517. [PDF](http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf1-cg/readings/Anderson_1991_adaptive_cognition.pdf)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your answer. I didn't know about ACT-R, I'll look into it. And indeed, I think we all agree that "just-so" arguments sometimes found in evolutionary arguments (psychological or otherwise) are simply bad science.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-04-11. Score: 2

One area in which, I believe, evolutionary psychology gets a fair degree of respect is in social psychology, and in particular in the study of cooperative behavior.

You might wish to check out

> Axelrod (1981) The Evolution of Cooperation
>
> Nowak (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Interesting, but note that OP is asking about the status of evolutionary psychology *today*, not in 1981. I suppose what you're saying is that these articles commonly appear on social psych syllabi today?  
> **username_3**: The Axelrod work is foundational for the Nowak stuff and the latter is fairly recent as far as I know.  
> **username_5**: Not sure if Nowak is the most relevant source for psychologists, especially not that book. I think Pinker might be more relevant.  
> **username_3**: All I can say is that we DID read Nowak in my social psych class, and not Pinker, though to be fair, I'm not a social psychologist and this was a class specifically about agent-based modeling in social psych, so it might be a special interest thing.  
> **username_4**: Evolutionary psychology (EP) does not at all seem to be on the wane - David Buss’ 6th edition of his Handbook to Evolutionary Psychology was released 2 months ago. In terms of other branches of psychology, neuroscientists, neurobiologists and the like typically anchor their findings in EP. For example they will hypothesise that function x may be ‘adaptive’ or relate to ‘sexual selection ‘ etc. Genetics, for example, is inherently founded on evolutionary theory and hypotheses derived therefrom (inc from twin studies) inform behavioural treatments today  

---

