Verified by 
Evolutionary Psychology
Has Resistance to Evolution Gone the Way of Disco Pants?
Psychology reaches a new evolutionary level.
Posted April 19, 2011
Way back in 1975, King Elvis was still alive but fading fast, President Nixon had just been deposed, and eminent psychologists were bemoaning their lack of a coherent theory to organize their discipline. But I found something to believe in. It happened one day when I should have been buried in the library reading for my upcoming comprehensive exams, memorizing the details of classic experiments by Solomon Asch, Stanley Milgram, and Muzafir Sherif. Instead, I drifted aimlessly into the campus bookstore, where I came upon a book titled Primate Behavior and the Emergence of Human Culture by anthropologist Jane Lancaster. Lancaster’s book was instrumental in converting me to an evolutionary perspective on human social behavior. [I'll describe why in an upcoming post excerpting my forthcoming book due to be published soon; you can, though, look inside at amazon.com.]
Given that psychologists were lamenting their lack of an organizing paradigm, it seemed obvious to me that an evolutionary perspective, which placed human behavior in the context of the rest of the animal kingdom, might be just the antidote we were seeking. But “obvious” to me drew a reaction of “crazy” from many of my fellow psychologists, who began looking at me like I’d just joined a cult. And when my colleagues and I tried to publish our first papers applying what seemed to us like obvious applications, we met with some pretty unsettling reactions (including one reviewer who “felt compelled to protect the unwary journal readership” from what he or she perceived to be dangerous ideas—meaning that even other scientists shouldn’t be trusted to think in those terms).
Well, I’m delighted to say that the times have changed. Younger psychologists are much more open-minded, and some of the leaders of modern social psychology, including John Bargh, Roy Baumeister, Bob Cialdini, Joe Forgas, Jeff Simpson, Paul Van Lange, and Mark Van Vugt now regularly incorporate evolutionary ideas into their research.
It was especially rewarding to open up this month’s edition of Current Perspectives on Psychological Science. If you aren’t familiar with the various psychological journals, Current Perspectives is dedicated to reporting on the hottest trends in modern research, and the editor asks the trend-setting researchers to report on those new developments in brief clearly written articles—designed for a young professor teaching general psychology, an educated non-psychologist interested in the field, or a researcher whose main interests lie on a different topic. Consequently, it’s a great way to see what’s “happening” in the field. Hence, I was gratified to see three articles in a row applying an evolutionary perspective to different areas of psychology. Here’s the very quick summary, along with a link to the journal website if you want more information:
Can men detect ovulation? In this article Martie Haselton and Kelly Gildersleeve of UCLA challenge the consensus that long held among biologists and social scientists: that human ovulation is “concealed,” or has been “lost.” They review a number of fascinating recent findings suggesting quite the contrary. For example, lap dancers working in “gentlemen’s clubs” get twice as many tips when they are ovulating, and women in other (less sexual) occupations choose more attractive clothing when they are ovulating. Women’s body scent becomes more attractive to men, as does their vocal pitch. But their boyfriends also become more jealous, and are more likely to call on the cell phone—“Where are you now? Who else is there?” I’ve reported on some of these findings in earlier postings, see below for links. But the key point is: Though ovulation may not be consciously processed by men or by women, it is clearly influencing many behaviors, in both sexes, on a nonconscious level.
The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). In this article, Mark Schaller (University of British Columbia) and Justin Park (University of Bristol) note that the first line of defense against infectious diseases is not the T-cells in your bloodstream, it is the behavioral steps you take to avoid disease in the first place: 1) being alert for signs of pathogens in the environment (why a dirty bathroom in a train station can trigger a red alert), 2) responding with thoughts and emotions related to disease (why disgust and a pinch of obsessive-compulsive rumination can sometimes be good for your health), which lead to: 3) behaviors designed to avoid disease (Park has interesting data suggesting that disease outbreaks have an important influence on international plans, for example). The findings have some provocative implications for understanding phenomena like xenophobia and why there are cultural differences in extraversion and friendliness. I’ve also talked about this rather eye-opening research in previous blogs as well (see below for links).
Grandparental investment: Relic of the past or resource for the future? In this article, David A. Coall (University of Western Australia) and Ralph Hertwig (University of Basel) discuss the emerging evolutionary literature on the value of grandparents, and ask what motivates grandparents to be so helpful. They review the fascinating new life-history accounts of grandparental investment, and link that literature with previously disconnected work from economics and sociology. They also address the following fascinating question: What impact does grandparental investment have in modern industrialized, low-fertility, low-mortality societies?
Two other things I’ll note: If you look at the affiliations listed above, you’ll see that evolutionary psychology is being done: 1) all around the world, and 2) in some highly prestigious research universities. In other words, what was once regarded as a mildly crazy is now in vogue.
Of course, there are still a few behavioral researchers who have yet to incorporate an evolutionary perspective, but the objections are fewer, and usually stated in more reasonable terms (ignoring for the moment that a good portion of the remaining objections have been addressed dozens of times with data in the intervening three and a half decades). Indeed, when I recently discussed such a difference of opinion, proponents on both sides were arguing about research findings and how to interpret them, not about censoring any talk of evolution among social scientists (see "Dead Again" below in related posts below).
Related posts
Do women’s pheromones trigger economic riskiness in men?
I Only Have Eyes For You: Ovulating Women Stare at, But Don’t Remember Handsome men.
Psychological Immune System I:Why seeing me sneeze makes you healthier.
The psychological immune system 2: When it’s healthy to be antisocial
Dead Again: Scientific American re-re-buries evolutionary psychology.
References
Coall, D. A. , & Hertwig, R. (2011). Grandparental investment: A relic of the past or a resource for the future? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20: 87, DOI: 10.1177/0963721411403269.
Haselton, M.G., & Gildersleeve, K. (2011). Can men detect ovulation? Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20: 87, DOI: 10.1177/0963721411402668.
Kenrick, D.T. (2011) Sex, murder, and the meaning of life: A psychologist investigates how cognition, evolution, and complexity are revolutionizing our view of human nature. New York: Basic Books.
Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011) The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 20: 87, DOI: 10.1177/09637 21411402596.
