This paper examines evolutionary psychology as a framework for understanding human cognition and behavior through the lens of evolutionary history. It synthesizes arguments from prominent supporters like Cosmides and Tooby with substantial criticisms raised by scholars like Buller, who challenges both methodology and interpretation of key studies. The paper applies evolutionary psychology to cognitive phenomena including the cocktail party effect and object categorization, then argues that the nature-versus-nurture dichotomy is unnecessarily divisive. The author concludes that evolutionary psychology offers valuable insights but should be integrated with learning-based approaches rather than treated as the exclusive explanation for human behavior.
Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field of study that aims to understand the development of cognitive reasoning and behavior based on evolutionary history, where traits favorable for reproduction and survival are selected for. Biological theories of evolution explain psychological phenomena of behavior, cognition, and social interactions. Though the field provides a novel perspective on behavior and cognitive processes, it remains a topic of heavy skepticism and criticism. Critics claim that assertions are often stretched to fit the paradigms that evolutionary psychologists have constructed. Nevertheless, evolutionary psychology theories have proven to be an effective means of unraveling many attributes of human behavior and cognition.
Cosmides and Tooby (2013) explain the field's broad range of implications and applications. The authors describe the pitfalls of the classic "blank slate" theory and provide compelling evidence implicating the importance of this new school of thought. Just as physiology has evolved through natural selection to serve physiological functions, the human brain has evolved through natural selection, developing mental programs to serve information processing needs for increased survival and reproduction. This evolution of our brain to facilitate efficient human survival and reproduction has resulted in a complex array of specialized programs to manage and resolve problems our ancestors confronted, such as hunting, communication, and mate selection.
In contrast, Buller (2005) offers substantial criticism of evolutionary psychology. He posits that though evolutionary psychology can be entertained as a "field of inquiry" in that it can help explain facets of human behavior, there is insufficient evidence for it to be a comprehensive "paradigm" with specific guidelines to explain the evolution of the mind. Many studies that endorse evolutionary psychology contain flawed interpretations of their data. Buller suggests alternative explanations, citing confounded experiments and poor data interpretation in studies involving jealousy, parental love, and cheating detection.
Evolutionary psychology can help explain theories of attention discussed in cognitive science. In the cocktail party effect, though people are not paying conscious attention to unattended conversations—like at a cocktail party—they will notice their own name or a state of urgency such as "fire" or "help." The attenuation model suggests that unattended aspects of the environment are not completely blocked but simply attenuated such that people are only consciously aware of information that meets a threshold. Similarly, according to Cosmides and Tooby, evolved systems have unintentional responses to stimuli apart from intentional goals. Constant monitoring systems evolved to keep humans attentive and ready to respond to threats even if not actively searching for them. Humans demonstrate preferential attention to human faces because they provide important information about social interaction. Analogously, the cocktail party effect may be due to an adaptive trait for people to constantly monitor their surroundings and remain alerted to potential threats even without conscious effort. This would have been particularly beneficial for hunter-gatherer ancestors where recognizing threats was crucial to survival, resulting in the selection for such a trait.
Various theories on how humans categorize objects include classical theory, prototype theory, exemplar theory, and concepts as theories. They are centered on the ability to categorize objects based on similar features, context, and concepts, which may have evolved as an adaptive advantage. Humans categorize by unitary and general processes based on shared features. Such categorization is adaptive for societal progress. In hunter-gatherer societies, it was important to distinguish between those who contribute to society and those who simply reap the benefits—free-riders. Thus, humans have evolved to efficiently categorize people as free-riders or contributors based on common features within each group. Similarly, it is important to be able to quickly distinguish between a predator lion and a harmless bird. Thus, humans must have evolved psychological mechanisms to effectively categorize numerous facets of their lives based on specific cues, especially when such facets may pose a danger to survival.
Cosmides and Tooby's article on the exciting breakthroughs and contributions of evolutionary psychologists stands in stark contrast to Buller's attempt to debunk the entire field of study. The only point on which the two articles seem to agree is that the human brain has evolved to facilitate survival and reproduction. Buller claims that studies supporting evolutionary psychology paradigms have alternative explanations and flaws in study design. For example, Buss concluded that humans have evolved dichotomous jealous tendencies such that men are more distressed by sexual infidelity due to possible cuckoldry and women are more distressed by emotional infidelity due to possible loss of paternal care. However, Buss failed to measure whether men's distress over sexual infidelity exceeds their emotional distress, instead of simply comparing the sexes. Buller asserts that shortcomings like this demonstrate that evolutionary psychology is unsuccessful in presenting an accurate understanding of human psychology. However, in every discipline there are poorly designed studies, and evolutionary psychology is no different. Buller is overly critical in that he provides few examples of flawed studies and fails to give credence to the work of evolutionary psychologists.
Cosmides and Tooby, by contrast, offer compelling arguments for their field, providing a myriad of studies that demonstrate evolutionary adaptations of psychological and behavioral constructs. They discuss various aspects including visual attention, spatial cognition, and motivation and provide compelling supporting data. For example, game theory is used to analyze tactical social behavior by investigating human interaction when faced with incentivized decisions. Such studies demonstrate the adaptive evolution of cooperation for the greater good instead of free-riding, and the efficient utilization of common cues for solving problems. However, they fail to acknowledge that aspects of cognition and behavior may also be learned through experience. While each article makes a valiant effort to prove its point, both are rather one-sided—each occupying an extreme opposite end of the debate.
As a student of science, I am partial to using evolutionary biology as a means of explaining psychological constructs. While Cosmides and Tooby are uncompromising in their nature stance in the "nature versus nurture" argument, simply having an adaptively evolved, pre-programmed brain does not account for other aspects of human behavior—some of which must be learned. For example, Kanwisher, McDermott, and Chun (1997) found that the fusiform face area (FFA) of the human brain has one primary function: recognizing faces. Humans may have evolved a heightened ability to recognize faces to quickly determine who they are, their emotional state, and whether they are a threat. In a conflicting study, Gauthier and colleagues (1999) found that the FFA becomes more activated by an object once the subject develops greater expertise with the object. They claim the FFA is not selective for faces, but designed to respond to things humans have greater expertise in. Both ideologies regarding the FFA have merit, and though they are at odds with one another, they need not be mutually exclusive. It seems plausible that the FFA evolved to facilitate face expertise, but can also be trained for other subjects of importance. Similarly, the evolutionary psychology versus blank slate controversy is unnecessary. Like the nature versus nurture debate, both sides contribute to our understanding of psychology and behavior as a whole.
Future research should focus less on simply debunking another school of thought, but rather on providing deeper insight and alternative explanations to psychological phenomena. Evolutionary psychology paradigms are not the be-all and end-all, but rather another approach to the investigation and study of human behavior. The integration of evolutionary mechanisms with learning-based frameworks offers the most comprehensive understanding of how humans develop, think, and act in their environments.
You’re 98% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.