解释心理起源的新理论范式——进化心理学

进化心理学旨在通过进化的心理机制来解释人类行为的适应性,是解释人类心理起源和本质的一种新兴理论范式。该文首先简要分析了进化心理学的诞生背景;其次介绍了该理论的研究内容,其中重点阐述了进化的心理机制的适应性和领域特异性;然后评述了该理论对认知科学、发展心理学和消费者行为学的积极影响;最后对该理论的局限性与发展前景进行了小结。     

论进化心理学的“心理机制”

“心理机制”是进化心理学的核心概念。对这一概念的理解直接影响着对整个进化心理学理论的理解。该文尝试从心理学其它相关学科的角度,对这一概念的性质进行充分的解读与分析,同时也指出进化心理学“心理机制”理论之明显误区,并在此基础上对进化心理学价值之所在给予充分的彰显。     

进化心理学概览

该文认为处于萌芽状态的进化心理学作为一个新的心理学分支学科对人类心理运行机制提出了一些基本的解释与预测。该文也讨论了进化心理学研究遭受到的两种批评,其一是文化的重要性没有得到重视;其二是进化历史是“假想的故事”。同时作者认为完整地理解心理学研究课题需要进行最终水平的因果分析,只有掌握与运用自然选择理论才能从最终水平上理解研究课题     

进化观点下的智力研究

综述了进化心理学探讨智力所取得的研究成果,内容包括智力的起源（如进化环境与智力的关系）、进化心理学视角下智力的分类。同时,该文认为一般智力是一种特殊的认知模块,即专门智力。最后,讨论了对智力进行进化心理学研究的重要意义与未来研究取向。     

进化心理学取向与当代心理学

进化心理学以进化论为理论基础,用适应的观点来解释人类的心理机制及其行为方式。本文通过阐明进化心理学的产生背景,重点论述了进化心理学的思维方式及其与心理学主要学科分支的联系,并指出了进化心理学对当代心理学发展的影响。     

进化人格心理学的概念和理论

近几年来,心理学领域出现了一种新的研究范式——进化心理学。进化心理学综合了进化生物学的各种理论和当代心理学的研究法则,开辟了心理学研究的新领域。进化心理学者(如Buss1999,Carver1996)主张用进化论的视野来看待和研究人格问题,为人格心理学核心概念的建构提供了一个系统的框架。     

进化心理学视角下的智力研究

进化心理学和差异心理学是心理学的两个分支。进化心理学认为智力是一种进化的适应。差异心理学中智力是个体差异变量。本文试图整合二者的观点。认为智力既是进化的适应,也是个体差异变量。这将启示进化心理学家去研究更广范围的心理特质,允许智力研究和差异心理学运用进化心理学的理论和概念。本文还介绍了与智力进化相关的热带草原法则和Kanazawa的Savanna—IQ互动假说。     

进化心理学中的悲观主义色彩

进化心理学作为现代西方心理学三种新取向之一,提出了一些新的心理学观点与研究方向,但其理论本身体现出了一种悲观主义色彩。例如在对男女两性在伴侣选择和婚姻维持的心理行为机制的探究上体现出的一些人类高级情感,如爱情的缺失。文章探讨了进化心理学理论中悲观主义色彩在其主要理论假设中的体现,并简要地将其与另外两种取向———后现代心理学与积极心理学进行了对比。其目的是为了通过对进化心理学的反思,以推进心理学科的深入研究。     

进化发展心理学：发展中的人类本性

进化发展心理学研究社会能力与认知能力发展背后的基因与环境机制,以及基因与环境机制在特定社会文化中的表现。进化发展心理学探讨的主要问题与设计到的主要概念包括：（1）自然选择在毕生发展的早期阶段发挥作用;（2）进化发展心理学特别重视适应在婴儿期及儿童期发展中的作用;（3）儿童期的延长有助于儿童学习人类社会的复杂性;（4）发展背景的方法可以用来理解成人外显行为的进化起源;（5）基因与环境因素相互影响约束个体发展;（6）认知能力与行为活动敏感于早期环境,但二者发展也具有可塑性     

进化心理学与生态心理学的整合：理解适宜可用性

进化心理学源自达尔文进化论,以分析心理机能及起源为主要研究目的。同样,生态心理学在Brunswik(1956)和Gibson(1979)开创引领下,探讨了有机体的知觉、判断、行为等因素在环境适应中的作用。尽管进化心理学和生态心理学都具有生物机能主义倾向,但过去研究较少探讨二者联系。该文引入适宜可用性观点来整合进化心理学和生态心理学的理论与实证研究。适宜可用性的观点认为,生存与繁衍问题中的代价与利益分析有助于特定种群的动物采取趋近或回避行为来保证潜在适宜性。适宜可用性的观点源自进化生物学中的知觉理论,它解决了认识论中许多传统问题,也整合了进化心理学和生态心理学的实验研究成果。适宜可用性的观点为新世纪的感觉、知觉、认知、情绪和决策的研究提供了新的理论基础     

Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism, but not with gender feminism: A reply to Eagly and Wood (2011)

I comment on Eagly and Wood's biosocial constructionist evolutionary theory (2011; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9). Although this gender feminist theory allows for evolved physical differences between men and women and evolved psychological similarities for men and women, it fails to consider evolutionary accounts of psychological sex differences. I hypothesize that gender feminists' reluctance to acknowledge that evolution has left different fingerprints on men's and women's bodies and brains stems from two common misunderstandings of evolutionary psychology: the myth of immutability and the naturalistic fallacy. I conclude that although evolutionary psychology is eminently compatible with equity feminism, evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences. Gender feminism's dualistic view of evolution hinders the search for and understanding of the proximate and ultimate causes of inequality. Feminist psychology needs to evolve by embracing equity feminism, which has no a priori stance on the origin or existence of differences between the sexes.     

Joseph LeConte on evolution,education, and the structure of knowledge

During the last quarter of the nineteenth century the theory of evolution profoundly influenced American thought. In the form of Social Darwinism it significantly shaped views on race, civilization, and political theory. Sociology and psychology were developing concurrently as disciplines. All of these were destined to have an effect upon education, for many intellectuals believed that science in general and evolutionary theory in particular were directly applicable to all areas of thought. Among the advocates of such a role for science and evolutionary theory was Joseph LeConte, whose views on the subject are outlined and compared with his contemporaries.     

Examining the acceptance of and resistance to evolutionary psychology

The field of psychology remains a divided one. Several different sub-disciplines (e.g., developmental, cognitive, behaviorism, social, etc.) form what could be a unified scientific area. However, there is no widely accepted theory of unification. Charles Darwin once theorized that evolutionary theory would change the foundation of psychology; but over the years, evolutionary psychology has been met with hostile resistance from some of the prominent psychologists within the other sub-disciplines. Yet in recent years, all of the divided sub-disciplines of psychology have been slowly implementing evolutionary principles into their literature and research. This slow integration of evolutionary psychology into the other sub-disciplines indicates the possibility of a unified psychology with evolution as its foundation. This paper briefly reviews the literature within each major sub-discipline of psychology to show their implementation of evolutionary psychological theories, indicating the possibility of evolutionary psychology becoming the unifying paradigm upon which the entire field of psychology can be based. A call for action to continue this process is also discussed.     

Children,childhood, and development in evolutionary perspective

We examine children, childhood, and development from an evolutionary perspective. We begin by reviewing major assumptions of evolutionary–developmental psychology, including the integration of “soft” developmental systems theory with ideas from mainstream evolutionary psychology. We then discuss the concept of adaptive developmental plasticity and describe the core evolutionary concept of developmental programming and some of its applications to human development, as instantiated in life history theory and the theory of differential susceptibility to environmental influence. We then discuss the concept of adaptation from an evolutionary–developmental perspective, including ontogenetic and deferred adaptations, and examine the development of some adaptations of infancy and childhood from the domains of folk psychology and folk physics. We conclude that evolutionary theory can serve as a metatheory for developmental science.     

Evolutionary psychology from a developmental systems perspective: comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt (2003)

Although agreeing with R. Lickliter and H. Honeycutt (2003) that evolutionary psychology lacks and should adopt a coherent developmental model to explain how evolved mechanisms become expressed in phenotypes, it is argued that adhering to the principles of developmental systems theory, despite enhancing evolutionary psychology, would not change appreciably its basic focus. The concepts of innateness and modularity, what is inherited and what evolves, as well as the possible role of developmental plasticity in the evolution of human cognition are discussed. It is proposed that evolutionary psychology can incorporate the developmental systems perspective into its theorizing, with the end result being a science that more closely reflects human nature.     

Modern application of evolutionary theory to psychology: key concepts and clarifications

Darwinian selection has become the centerpiece of biology, and in the past few decades many psychologists and anthropologists have recognized the value of using an evolutionary perspective to guide their work. With a focus on evolved psychological mechanisms and associated information processing features, evolutionary psychology has risen as a compelling and fruitful approach to the study of human psychology and behavior. In this article we review the instrument of evolution: natural selection, the products of evolution, and the impact of evolutionary thinking on modern psychological science. We conclude that as prejudicial barriers are overcome, as more evolutionary psychological work is conducted, and as hypothesized psychological mechanisms are substantiated in other disciplines, evolutionary psychology will emerge as the metatheory for psychology.     

Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science

Cognitive psychology has an opportunity to turn itself into a theoretically rigorous discipline in which a powerful set of theories organize observations and suggest focused new hypotheses. This cannot happen, however, as long as intuition and folk psychology continue to set our research agenda. This is because intuition systematically blinds us to the full universe of problems our minds spontaneously solve, restricting our attention instead to a minute class of unrepresentative “high-level” problems. In contrast, evolutionarily rigorous theories of adaptive function are the logical foundation on which to build cognitive theories, because the architecture of the human mind acquired its functional organization through the evolutionary process. Theories of adaptive function specify what problems our cognitive mechanisms were designed by evolution to solve, thereby supplying critical information about what their design features are likely to be. This information can free cognitive scientists from the blinders of intuition and folk psychology, allowing them to construct experiments capable of detecting complex mechanisms they otherwise would not have thought to test for. The choice is not between no-nonsense empiricism and evolutionary theory; it is between folk theory and evolutionary theory.     

Taking old ideas seriously: Evolution, development, and human behavior

I argue that the roots of an adequate integration of evolution into psychology are not to be found in evolutionary psychology, but rather in evolutionary developmental biology (evo–devo). To this end, I provide an overview of evo–devo and explore the limited role that behavioral sciences have played in its genesis. I then motivate an evo–devo approach to psychobiology, and sketch desiderata for the success of this enterprise. In particular, I elucidate what it means to take both development and evolution seriously, and argue for the primacy of developmental analysis in the exploration of (human) behavior and its evolution.     

Feminists Need to Look Beyond Evolutionary Psychology for Insights into Human Reproductive Strategies: A Commentary

The Sex Roles: Feminist Reappraisals of Evolutionary Psychology issue that addressed evolutionary psychology’s Sexual Strategies Theory is enlightening for feminists as well as those scholars who examine men and women’s behavior. As several articles in this issue show, there are mixed results in support of this theory. While some feminists may want to conclude that this an indication of the limited influence evolution and biology has on gendered behavior, the mixed results rather may be due to problems that are foundational to evolutionary psychology itself. For those interested in evolutionary perspectives of men and women’s behavior, they should look beyond evolutionary psychology and examine what evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology can provide to our understanding of reproductive strategies. This is evident in feminist and female evolutionists’ works that have created a new model of sexual dialectics, begun the retesting of A. J. Bateman’s foundational work that underlies parental investment theory and Sexual Strategies Theory, and provided new evidence of phenotypic and behavioral plasticity. This research has called into question past assumptions of male dominance and female passivity in mating, and continues to challenge evolutionary psychology’s claim that based on Sexual Strategies Theory, there are evolved psychological gender differences between men and women in their desire for short-term mating opportunities and sexual variety that are rooted in our evolutionary past and not very responsive to the current environments within which men and women are making these reproductive decisions.