Skip to main content

Testing the Controversy

An Empirical Examination of Adaptationists’ Attitudes Toward Politics and Science

Human Nature volume 18, pages 313–328 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Somewhat ironically, many members of the religious right object to adaptationism because they view it as a liberal conspiracy antithetical to their own worldview (Pinker 2002). In this sense, adaptationists are characterized as holding two sets of diametrically opposed political views, and are simultaneously ostracized by both the political right and left.

  2. Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that the two groups violated homogeneity of variance assumptions, F = 4.18, p < 0.05. We conducted the t test assuming heterogeneity of variance and used the appropriate adjusted degrees of freedom. The test was also significant if we assume homogeneous variance, t 166 = 2.07, p < 0.05.

References

  • Alcock, J. (2000). Misbehavior: How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution. Boston Review, April/May. Retrieved August 31, 2005 from http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/alcock.html.

  • Allen, E., et al. (1975). Against sociobiology. New York Review of Books, 22(182), 184–186, (November 13).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, P. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Matthews, D. (2002). Adaptationism—How to carry out an exaptationist program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, 489–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T. (2000). Social causes and natural relations. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 206–224). London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, L. G. III, & Schaller, M. (2002). On the verifiability of evolutionary psychological theories: An analysis of the psychology of scientific persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 152–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagg, A. I. (2005). “Love of shopping” is not a gene: Problems with Darwinian psychology. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1985). Review of Not in our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature by R. Lewontin, S. Rose, & L. Kamin. New Scientist, 24, 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1997). Darwinian fundamentalism: An exchange. New York Review of Books, 44, 64–65, (August 14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Beyond difference: Feminism and evolutionary psychology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 174–189). London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1997a). Darwinian fundamentalism. New York Review of Books, 44, 34–37, (June 12).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1997b). Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism. New York Review of Books, 44, 47–52, (June 26).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1997c). Darwinian fundamentalism: An exchange. New York Review of Books, 44, 64, (August 14).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1997d). Evolutionary psychology: An exchange. New York Review of Books, 44, 56–58, (October 9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2000). More things on heaven and earth. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 85–105). London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marcos and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205, 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, E. (2005). Controversial issues in evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 145–176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb, H. R. III (1998). Testing evolutionary hypotheses. In C. Crawford & D. R. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 303–334). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R. (2001). Alas poor evolutionary psychology: Unfairly accused, unjustly condemned. Human Nature Review, 2, 99–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2005). Making hay out of straw: Real and imagined controversies in evolutionary psychology. In J. H. Barkow (Ed.), Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists. Oxford University Press, (pp. 149–162).

  • Lewontin, R., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. J. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology, and human nature. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. (2000). Less selfish than sacred? Genes and the religious impulse in evolutionary psychology. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 14–27). London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (2005). Beyond red vs. blue: Republicans divided about role of government – Democrats by societal and personal values. Accessed August 31, 2005 from http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/PRC_politicaltypology_0505.pdf.

  • Pinker, S. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: An exchange. New York Review of Books, 44, 56–58, (October 9).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, H. C. (2004). Evolutionary thought in psychology: A brief history. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, R. E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines: Biology, freedom, and determinism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, H., & Rose, S. (2000a). Introduction. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–13). London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, H., & Rose, S. (Eds.) (2000b). Alas poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. London: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociology debate and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. (1997). Darwinian fundamentalism: An exchange. New York Review of Books, 44, 65, (August 14).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

For online survey programming and helpful guidance, thanks to Holly Victorson. For help recruiting participants, thanks to: Daphne Bugental, Lorna Cunningham, Michael Dougher, Robert Kurzban, Norman Li, Steven Neuberg, and Todd Shackelford. Thanks also to Steven Neuberg, Ilanit Tal, Holly Victorson, and two reviewers for their helpful comments on a previous draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Logan Hall B38E, MSC03 2220, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-1161, USA

    Joshua M. Tybur, Geoffrey F. Miller & Steven W. Gangestad

Authors
  1. Joshua M. Tybur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoffrey F. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven W. Gangestad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua M. Tybur.

Appendix: Attitudes Toward Science Items

Appendix: Attitudes Toward Science Items

Factor 1

  • Science is the best tool for understanding how the world works.

  • Certain aspects of the human condition (e.g., love, hate, jealousy) will never be adequately understood with science alone (reverse).

  • To understand human behavior accurately, quantitative methods are almost always better than qualitative ones.

  • Scientific progress effectively weeds out bad theories and generates good ones.

  • Scientific methods are the only legitimate tools for making reliable inferences about the world.

  • Many aspects of human nature are irreducible and outside the scope of contemporary scientific inquiry (reverse).

  • We must use strong scientific methods to truly understand social problems like racism, sexism, and sexual assault.

Factor 2

  • Scientific researchers are inherently biased, and effects of their ideological motives should be critically considered.

  • Scientists overestimate the degree to which they understand the world.

  • Science is often used as an excuse to support the status quo.

  • Scientific researchers often manipulate their results to support their ideas.

  • Many academic papers reflect how the author wishes the world was rather than how it actually is.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tybur, J.M., Miller, G.F. & Gangestad, S.W. Testing the Controversy. Hum Nat 18, 313–328 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9024-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-007-9024-y

Keywords

  • Adaptationism
  • Political attitudes
  • Sociology of science