Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism

  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Does evolutionary psychology (EP) properly account for the sociocultural context? Does it underestimate both the developmental and the relational aspects of the human psyche? Is it instantiated in a mechanistic epistemology? Does it imply determinism or reductionism? The commentaries on our previous target article raised similar questions and we try to tackle them in the current response. Our “epistemological assessment” of Psychology and our consequent unification claim under the banner of the evolutionary approach (Zagaria et al., Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 521–562, 2020 ) was deeply examined and discussed. The objections to our target article can be grouped into four main categories. We sum them up and argue why: 1) the pre-paradigmatic status of psychology is a problem rather than a richness of perspectives; 2) EP's criticisms stem from common misconceptions—furthermore, developmental and relational aspects of human psyche might find their natural explanation in EP; 3) EP does not wipe out the emergence of the sociocultural context as something qualitatively different; 4) evolutionary meta-theory is not incompatible with subjectivity. Evolutionary psychology might be approached with caution and curiosity, rather than with prejudicial concepts. Incorporating some legitimate cultural criticisms, it may aspire to become a “cultural evolutionary psychology”, hence an integrative psychological meta-theory that tries to connect the biological “plane of existence” (Henriques, Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182, 2003) to the cultural “plane of existence”. However, a basic philosophical concern has yet to be answered, i.e. what ultimately constitutes mind and thus the “psycho-logical” science. We argue that when trying to find the answer we know where to look at.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Newton’s mechanics, though largely implemented in engineering, is better conceptualized as a good approximation rather than an accurate theory. From a theoretical standpoint, it has been superseded.

  2. Trying to summarize them would be unprofitable; though it is worth noting that the variety of explanations probably would be mutually excluding in psychoanalytic thought alone.

  3. The analysis of introductory books has been criticized by Baucal and Krstić (2020, p. 582) as well. The authors argue that Natural Language Processing (NLP) on research papers could be a more profitable methodology. We do not rule out replicating our results with this method in the future, however, we believe that our epistemological assessment remains solid.

  4. A similar instance of the importance of everyday-intersubjective-folk psychology is shared by the commentary by Uher (2021). Though labelling her account postmodernist would be misleading; “subjectivist” would do better.

  5. The commentary by Di Nuovo (2020) explores the Evo-Devo approach.

  6. Uexkül has been cited in the commentary by De Luca Picione (2020) and Morioka (2020).

  7. Including Merleau Ponty, who has been extensively cited by Brinkmann (2020) to undermine the epistemology of EP.

  8. A similar critique of the epistemology of evolutionary psychology is made by Tateo (2020 p.673-675), who stresses that the epistemology of psychology should by “eco-systemic”, thus considering the relationships between the phenomena, “which is more than the mere sum of parts” (Tateo, 2020,p.673).

  9. According to Dobzhansky (1968) the concept of adaptation can be clarified as follows: a) adaptation is “the process of becoming adapted” (p.7) b) an adaptive trait is a phenotypical “structural or functional characteristic (...) of the organism” (p.7) c) adaptedness “is a state of being adapted” (p.7) and d) "adaptability “means that the organism or population concerned can remain or can become physiologically or genetically adapted in a certain range of environments” (p.7) .

  10. However, “psyche”/“mind” are far from being consistently defined (Zagaria et al., 2020). What is the meaning of the adjective “psychological” applied to “adaptation” then? We will tentatively argue that psychological adaptations are neural networks associated with consciousness. If a basic form of sentience were not included in an account of the mind, all evolved neural networks would be considered as psychological. However, a neural network responsible for neural reflexes could be hardly defined as “ mental” (think about the ventilation reflexes occurring during sleep). The structure and the implications of the association between consciousness and neural networks might be debated elsewhere. For now, note that “minimal consciousness” is probably shared by a large part of non-human animals (Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016; Ginsburg & Jablonka, 2019), and that with “association” we do not mean the “substrate” of consciousness as a specific process. We are aware that consciousness is one of the trickiest concepts in science, but when it comes to psychology it seems to be necessary nonetheless.

  11. The term “module” has been used until now without dwelling on it. Due to space limitation, we cannot address the long-standing debate about the nature of modularity. What we want to stress though is that the terms “module” and “modularity” are here used as mere synonyms respectively of “domain-specific” and “domain-specificity”. With regards to this issue, we do not side with any theory of “massive modularity” or “soft modularity”, claiming that Homo Sapiens has for sure “some degree of modular structure” (Dunbar & Barrett, 2007, p.5) and that is enough for a coherent evolutionary theory.

  12. We then directly address Gozli's argument, who states we did not account properly for Henriques' theory (Gozli, 2020, p.575).

  13. Many non-human animals seem to show cultural traits, linguistic abilities and a minimal consciousness as well (e.g. Feinberg & Mallatt, 2016; Ginsburg & Jablonka, 2019; Tomasello, 1999). However, the kind of language, culture and consciousness exhibited in non-human animals seems to be significantly different from the kind exhibited in humans.

  14. The ultimate “function” of the “Life” plane of existence (Henriques, 2003, 2011, ch.6) seems to be the replication of genes. What is the ultimate “function” of the “Mind” plane of existence, on the contrary, is not clear. Additionally, its functioning is often conflated with a biological one. We tentatively argue that the “function” of the “Mind” plane of existence could be that of “making decisions'' (i.e. “selecting among alternatives”) and that that function could be emergent while autonomous from the biological functioning. Space room does not allow further analysis. For now, note that in order to be defined as “mental” the process of “decision-making” as such should be defined thanks to its association with consciousness (see footnote 10, this article).

  15. Misra et al. (2021, p. 175) questioned the utility of EP in professional psychology (e.g. psychotherapy). Space limit does not allow further analysis, however, evolutionary insights do inform therapeutic practice (e.g. Liotti, 2005; Siegel, 2020)

  16. As Smedlund (2021) argued: “our actions and reactions are explicable in terms of reasons, which we balance against the norms, customs and conventions of a culture” (p.184)

  17. The “Person-Culture” plane of existence does not include only human psychology; for the most part it includes other social sciences (i.e. anthropology, sociology, economics, political science) (Henriques, 2021a).

  18. What exactly constitutes a justification is not entirely clear in Henriques’ writings (Henriques, 2011, ch. 1). Our idea is that justification can be defined as “an argument aimed at explaining why”. Indeed, we narrow Henriques’ hypothesis (i.e. emergence of propositional language equating emergence of justifications) and speculate that the emerge of justifications, more specifically, equate the emergence of causal connectives in human language (i.e. the emergence of why-because question–answer dynamics). In other words, justifications, as well as the Person-Culture plane of existence, might have emerged with the appearance of “why” in our evolution (Zagaria, 2021).

  19. Gozli (2020) and Mascolo (2021, p. 201) argue that we highlighted a problem (the absence of core-constructs) without explaining how EP can overcome such impasse.

  20. Note that psychological adaptations are always associated with by-products and noise (see "Reframing Evolutionary Psychology).

References

  • Aristotle. (1941). Physics (Physica). In R. McKeon (Ed.), The basic works of Aristotle. (pp. 213–394). Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balachandran, N. (2011). A proposed taxonomy of human evolved psychological adaptations. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology., 5, 194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L. (2011). Beyond the brain: How body and environment shape animal and human minds. Princeton University Press.

  • Barrett, L., Pollet, T., & Stulp, G. (2015). Evolved biocultural beings (who invented computers). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1047.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, L., Pollet, T. V., & Stulp, G. (2014). From computers to cultivation: Reconceptualizing evolutionary psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 867.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Baucal, A., & Krstić, K. (2020). Searching for an integrative theoretical framework for psychology: Evolutionary psychology is needed, but not sufficient. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 579–588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, S., (2000). The meme machine. Oxford Paperbacks.

  • Brinkmann, S. (2020). Moving on our feet: For a nomadic psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 589–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, B. (2008). Onto-Ethologies: The Animal Environments of Uexküll, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Deleuze. Suny Press.

  • Buss, D. (2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Routledge.

  • Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American psychologist, 53(5), 533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary, N., & Sriram, S. (2020). Musings about metaphors and models: The need to put psychology together again. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09575-8.

  • Cole, S. (1983). The hierarchy of the sciences? American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (2001). What’s wrong with sociology? . Transacton Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7782–7789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (2015). How does learned behavior evolve into inherited instinct? Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science. URL: https://richarddawkins.net/2015/04/darwin-day-2015-questions-6-how-does-learned-behavior-evolve-into-inherited-instinct/ Retrieved: 23/03/2021.

  • Del Giudice, M. (2018). Evolutionary psychopathology: A unified approach. Oxford University Press.

  • De Luca Picione, R. (2020). The semiotic paradigm in psychology. A Mature Weltanschauung for the definition of semiotic mind. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 639–650.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Nuovo, S. (2020). Searching for models for psychological science: A possible contribution of simulation. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 701–709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T. (1968). On some fundamental concepts of Darwinian biology. In Evolutionary biology (pp. 1–34). Springer.

  • Dunbar, R. I., & Barrett, L. (2007). Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 5(4), e10068.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2020). Metascientific reproducibility patterns revealed by informatic measure of knowledge (No. 5vnhj). Center for Open Science.

  • Fanelli, D., & Glänzel, W. (2013). Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66938.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, T. E., & Mallatt, J. M. (2016). The ancient origins of consciousness: How the brain created experience. MIT Press.

  • Gamsakhurdia, V. L. (2020). Systematic semiotic organisation and anthropologisation of the science of soul-towards cultural psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 625–638.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2019). The evolution of the sensitive soul: Learning and the origins of consciousness. MIT Press.

  • Gould, S. J. (1978). Sociobiology: The art of storytelling. New Scientist, 80(1129), 530–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.

  • Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation-a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.

  • Gozli, D. (2020). Staying with questions and resisting quick answers: Commentary on Zagaria, Andò, and Zennaro. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 572–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. D., & Watts, J. (2017). Cultural macroevolution matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7846–7852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2017). Shoes: The early learning of an important distinction in Japanese society. In J. Hendry (Ed.), An Anthropological Lifetime in Japan. (pp. 80–88). Brill.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. (2003). The tree of knowledge system and the theoretical unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 150–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Henriques, G. (2019). Toward a metaphysical empirical psychology. In Re-envisioning Theoretical Psychology (pp. 209–237). Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Henriques, G. (2021a). The Distinction Between the Natural and Social Sciences as Found in the Vision Logic of the Tree of Knowledge System. Medium https://medium.com/unified-theory-of-knowledge/the-distinction-between-the-natural-and-social-sciences-as-found-in-the-vision-logic-of-the-tree-ea68ff57595e. Accessed 23 Mar 2021.

  • Henriques, G. (2021b). Human Consciousness in Five Basic Steps. Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/202102/human-consciousness-in-five-basic-steps#_=_. Accessed 23 Mar 2021.

  • Henriques, G. R. (2004). Psychology defined. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1207–1221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, G. R. (2008). The problem of psychology and the integration of human knowledge: Contrasting Wilson’s consilience with the tree of knowledge system. Theory & Psychology, 18(6), 731–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Harvard University Press.

  • Jensen, M. (2020). Wrong problem but right answer? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 660–666.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, S. (1981). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a quarter century qua science. American Psychologist, 36, 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, S. (1993). “Psychology” or “the psychological studies”? American Psychologist, 48, 902–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerspetz, K. Y. (2001). Jakob von Uexkull and the origins of cybernetics. Semiotica-La Haye Then Berlin, 134(1/4), 643–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1813), 20151019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liotti, G. (2005). La dimensione interpersonale della coscienza,(secondaedizione). Carocci.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (2020). In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Units and Levels of Selection, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/selection-units/. Accessed 23 Mar 2021.

  • Loredo-Narciandi, J. C., & Castro-Tejerina, J. (2021). The clay of evolution: Megalomania in (Evolutionary) psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–11.

  • Lundh, L. G. (2021). Persons and genes. Is a gene-centered evolutionary psychology compatible with a person-oriented approach to psychological science? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55, 189–197.

  • Mameli, M. (2007). Evolution and psychology in philosophical perspective. In R.I.M Dunbar, & L. Barrett (Eds.), Oxford Handbook Of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 21–34). Oxford University Press.

  • Marsico, G., & Calandrini, A. R. (2020). Getting psychology back onto its feet: The developmental view of James mark Baldwin. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 686–693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martí, E. (2020). The need for epistemological vigilance. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 677–685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Märtsin, M. (2020). Psychology: A discipline in need of reflective foundations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascolo, M. F. (2021). Inching toward a unified metatheory for psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55(1), 198–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, L. B. (2020). Progress in psychological science. The importance of informed ignorance and curiosity-driven questions. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 613–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2020). Concerning paradigmatic status of psychological science: For a flexible and flowing psychology in the face of practical and theoretical challenges. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 604–612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, G., Pirta, R. S., Misra, I., & Chandra, N. (2021). The game of science and puzzles of paradigm. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55(1), 167–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morioka, M. (2020). Continuity and discontinuity between the psychological world and the biological world. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09557-w.

  • Murachi, T. (1989). Taking off shoes to enter Japanese houses—Why? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 32(3), 385–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesse, R. M. (2001). The smoke detector principle. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935, 75–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fear, phobias and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ossorio, P. G. (2006). The behavior of persons. The collected works of P. G. Ossorio (Vol. V). Descriptive Psychology Press.

  • Pinheiro, M. A. (2020). A wittgensteinian comment on “psychology: A giant with feet of clay” a question from research on creativity. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 651–659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. (2010). Evolution–the extended synthesis. The MIT press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evidence of psychological adaptation: How do we know one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643–649.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. J. (2020). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Publications.

  • Simonton, D. K. (2004). Psychology’s status as a scientific discipline: Its empirical placement within an implicit hierarchy of the sciences. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (2015). Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, J. A., & Campbell, L. (2015). Methods of evolutionary sciences. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. (pp. 115–135). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedlund, M. B. (2021). On the foundations of psychology: The problem is grammatical, not theoretical. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55(1), 181–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tateo, L. (2020). The golem of psychology and the ecosystemic epistemology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 667–676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Belknap Press.

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2015). The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. (2nd ed., pp. 3–87). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2007). Unifying psychology: Absolutely necessary, not only useful. In A. V. B. Bastos & N. M. D. Rocha (Eds.), Psicologia: Novas direçoes no dialogo com outros campos de saber. (pp. 449–464). Casa do Psicologo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2007). Culture of science: Strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(1), 6–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2009). How methodology became a toolbox—and how it escapes from that box. In Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 45–66). Springer.

  • Toomela, A. (2010). Quantitative methods in psychology: inevitable and useless. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 29.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2011). Travel into a fairy land: A critique of modern qualitative and mixed methods psychologies. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(1), 21–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2012). Guesses on the future of cultural psychology: Past, present, and past. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. (pp. 998–1033). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2020). Psychology today: Still in denial, still outdated. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(3), 563–571.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uher, J. (2021). Psychology’s status as a science: Peculiarities and intrinsic challenges. Moving beyond its current deadlock towards conceptual integration Integrative. Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55(1), 212–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valsiner, J. (2020). From clay feet to new psychology: Starting the move. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 515–520.

  • Von Uexküll, J. (1992). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. Semiotica, 89(4), 319–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, D. A. (2021). Plasticity-led evolution and human culture. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09607-x.

  • Williams, G. C. (1996) Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University.

  • Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge (vol. 31). Vintage.

  • Wu, A., & Xu, S. (2020). One step further: where to put the subjectivity of human mind in efforts of integrating psychology? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 597–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, C. D., & Udell, M. A. (2013). Animal cognition: Evolution, behavior and cognition. Macmillan International Higher Education.

  • Zagaria, A. (2021). A missing link between the natural and social sciences: The justifying mechanism [Manuscript in preparation]. University of Turin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagaria, A., Andò, A., & Zennaro, Al. (2020). Psychology: A giant with feet of clay. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science., 54(3), 521–562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Turin, 10124, Turin, Italy

    Andrea Zagaria, Agata Ando’ & Alessandro Zennaro

Authors
  1. Andrea Zagaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agata Ando’
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alessandro Zennaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Zagaria.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zagaria, A., Ando’, A. & Zennaro, A. Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism. Integr. psych. behav. 55, 225–249 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09613-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09613-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation