Do social psychologists have an ideological aversion to evolutionary psychology?

GettyImages-171584273.jpgBy Christian Jarrett

A new survey of beliefs held by social psychologists (335 mostly US-based members of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology) has confirmed previous reports that the field is overwhelmingly populated by researchers of a left-wing, liberal bent. What’s more, David Buss and William von Hippel – the evolutionary social psychologists who conducted and analysed the survey – say their findings, published open-access in Archives of Scientific Psychology, suggest that some social psychologists may be opposed, for ideological reasons, to insights rooted in evolutionary psychology.

Buss and von Hippel add that compounding matters is an irony – the desire of some researchers to signal their ideological stance and commitment to others who share their political views, which is a manifestation of the evolved human adaptation to form coalitions. “Part of this virtue signalling entails rejecting a caricature of evolutionary psychology that no scientist actually holds,” they write.

In terms of the political bias among social psychologists, Buss and von Hippel found that 95 per cent were mostly liberal and left-wing in their views (also, among the US respondents, only 4 had voted Republican in the prior Presidential election while 305 had voted Democrat).

Quizzing the social psychologists on their views of evolutionary theory, Buss and von Hippel found that they overwhelmingly accepted the principles of Darwinian evolution and also that it applied to humans, but when it came to whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and behaviour, the sample was split, with many social psychologists rejecting this notion.

Digging deeper into the survey results, there was no evidence that the social psychologists were averse to evolutionary psychology for religious reasons, but many did reject the idea that humans might be inherently violent (in certain situations) or that some people are widely considered more physically attractive than others due to universal evolved standards of attractiveness – perhaps, Buss and von Hippel suggested, this is because “they dislike the implications regarding the dark side of human nature.”

Next, Buss and von Hippel asked the social psychologists about their views on the truth of five hot button statements related to the biological basis of average sex differences, such as whether such differences are primarily genetic rather than environmental, whether sex-differentiated hormones play a role, and whether it might be more difficult for men than women to stay faithful in long-term romantic relationships.

Answers to three of these five hot-button questions accounted for a small but statistically significant amount of the variance in the social psychologists’ position on whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and their self-reported political ideology. This pattern is consistent with the idea that, while the relation between political ideology and scientific beliefs is complex, some social psychologists are inclined to reject evolutionary psychology findings on ideological grounds (in keeping with this interpretation, a substantial portion of the sample said it would be bad if the hot-button findings were widely reported).

As a case in point, Buss and von Hippel highlight the recent book Testosterone Rex: Unmaking the Myths of Our Gendered Minds by psychologist Cordelia Fine – a text that argues against biological differences between the sexes (and in favour of sociological explanations) and which won wide praise from journalists and left-leaning scientists around the globe, while at the same time receiving scathing criticism from evolutionary biologists and psychologists with relevant expertise in evolutionary science.

Buss and von Hippel argue that Fine and others are motivated by social justice goals (in this case gender equality) to reject findings from evolutionary biology and psychology – or a caricature of them. But they believe this is a mistake, not only for the obvious reason that it is wrong to misrepresent the evidence, but also because important moral principles – such as equality – should not be founded on the the idea that there are no biological differences between women and men. Here they quote the author and evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, who argued, “… equality is not the empirical claim that all groups of humans are interchangeable; it is the moral principle that individuals should not be judged or constrained by the average properties of their group.”

Buss and von Hippel think that, motivated by principles of social justice, many social psychologists are ideologically opposed to what they mistakenly think evolutionary psychology argues for – namely genetic determinism, environmental irrelevance, and the idea that attempts to change human behaviour are doomed to fail. In fact, these are erroneous caricatures and evolutionary psychology does not espouse any of these beliefs. It does though recognise that we are not blank slates and that our minds and behaviour have been shaped by evolution in important ways.

Critically, Buss and von Hippel make the point that recognising our evolved psychological adaptations and predilections will actually lead to more effective efforts toward social justice (on the other hand, denying the biological roots of human nature will surely blind researchers from understanding some of the important factors at play in the social injustices that they seek to address). The pair add that, ironically, it is the evolved human tendency to form coalitions that leads “…social scientists to signal ideological commitments to their presumptive coalitions rather than to ferret out the most compelling scientific theories and empirical findings.”

On an optimistic note, Buss and von Hippel point out that their survey found that a substantial minority of social psychologists did endorse findings rooted in evolutionary biology. But still there is a long way to go until the schism in psychological and theoretical perspectives is bridged – a situation they believe is likely made worse by the lack of proper training in evolutionary sciences in psychology*. “Not a single degree-granting institution in the United States, to our knowledge, requires even a single course in evolutionary biology as part of a degree in psychology,” they write, adding that this is “an astonishing educational gap that disconnects psychology from the rest of the life sciences.”

Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations

* In the UK, undergrad psychology degrees must follow the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education’s benchmark statement for psychology, which lists evolutionary psychology as an example topic within the compulsory subject area of Biological Psychology (PDF; see Section 3.3). BPS accredited courses must “reflect contemporary learning, research and practice in psychology” and ensure “adequate breadth and depth of coverage” of the subject areas outlined in the QAA benchmark statement.

Note: the title of this post was changed on Nov 29 2018 (together with a couple of minor changes to the main text) following a request from the authors of the target paper.

Christian Jarrett (@Psych_Writer) is Editor of BPS Research Digest

19 thoughts on “Do social psychologists have an ideological aversion to evolutionary psychology?”

  1. Are we not all aware of the problems brought on by ideology? I recall toxic comments on the nature/nurture debate a couple of decades or so ago, from ideologues determined to be blind and deaf to any considerations other than their own.
    This is not the way forward as our current socio-political situation shows.

  2. Great piece. If monoculture in psychology interests you/worries you, social psychologist Jon Haidt has set up the Heterodox Academy which champions viewpoint diversity in academia and research, and his new book The Coddling of the American looks at the trend and consequences of monoculture at Universities and beyond.

  3. Lol, this stuff is too funny. There is nothing contained in this study which suggests social psychologists oppose Evo psych due to political beliefs apart from the fact that most self-identity as liberals. Beyond that, none of the questions related to politics at all.

    I shouldn’t be surprised though, evolutionary psychologists are very riled up about the fact that no one respects their discipline and they are eager to claim it’s because of political opposition. But really it’s because evolutionary psychologists are shoddy scientists.

    Case in point: the interpretation of this study. Clearly evolutionary psychologists do not understand how to design or how to interpret survey data.

    As an independent observer with no skin in the game (apart from how much I think Evo psych is a joke) I read this study pretty plainly: the authors asked a bunch of social scientists “do you believe this [insert Evo psych claim here]?” repeatedly until they had dredged the pond of every Evo psych claim out there, and not surprisingly they found lots of people didn’t agree with them. (And a surprisingly large number who believed every word.) No wonder, given that Evo psych is the only field of psychology that lacks any firm methodology or data. And this is psychology, mind you, so that’s saying something.

    1. “Answers to three of these five hot-button questions accounted for a small but statistically significant amount of the variance in the social psychologists’ position on whether evolutionary theory applies to human psychology and their self-reported political ideology.”

    2. So do you think we are all a blank slate? Do you believe gender is a social construct? Do you believe that somehow the brain is the only body part that escaped evolution? You need to prove your stance that “society” is some sort of sentient being that decides our behaviors, many of which are the same across culture and time, and oceans.

      1. In addition to some basic methodological training, some evolutionary psychologists obviously should need some basic training in logic: see all the non sequiturs above, November 29, 2018 at 6:48 am..

      2. All we can truly know is that biology influences human behavior and preferences. It is absolutely ideologically motivated to deny this. Making assertions regarding how that biology came to be determined is arrogance without scientific basis.

  4. An accurate understanding of human nature implies the understanding of how humans are shaped by society and culture, conditioned to adopt the very rigid set of behaviors and beliefs that their gender implies, since their early life’s weeks. It seems to me that many evolutionary scientists will defend sexist and homophobic Dawkins-like theories that essentialize women and men, raising the magic argument that “culture is a mechanism for achieving evolutionary goals” anyway. Rationalism is a good approach, but it should not be biased by sexism, racism or any discriminatory social system (including capitalism). Having left-wing ideas in this context is probably the best thing to have to get closer to the truth. What would be really cool is that evolutionary psychologists realize that they also are constrained by the same rules (I think this is where the true “denial” is) and need to identify and abandon them in order to make unbiased science.
    We are all biased during the production of science, so let’s not use the “evolution” excuse if we really aim for scientific truth and equality, and let’s put some energy in reading academic works produced by scholars such as Judith Butler, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Raewyn Connell, etc. so that we could stop to perceive the tendency for women to smile as natural, biologically rooted and relevant in an evolution perspective (as in Schmitt, 2017, an article cited by the Buss & von Hippel’s paper), but perceive the social injunction, education and norms, behind this behavior.

    Let’s also not forgot that we tend to give more credit to non-social sciences because of the belief that it has higher accuracy over social sciences, which is I think what this article is about sometimes: evolutionary (biology, genetics) psychologists are right vs social (non-accurate) psychologists are wrong. I thought the former was more a theoretical approach and the later was based on actual data, this is where the irony would be.

    1. Maxime,

      That was a great word salad. Thanks for demonstrating to us all how much people can write without saying anything meaningful.

  5. This means if human do not inherently aggression then this is disease not disorder . Which sociologist want to say that

  6. If human not innately aggressive in some condition like self defence aggression then these type of behaviour also disease this should not enter in disorder , sociologist want to say that

Comments are closed.