Dispelling misconceptions about evolutionary psychology

Evolutionary psychology
Credit: Chris Madden
Research in evolutionary psychology attracts considerable attention, from both enthusiasts and critics. Evolutionary researchers devote substantial effort to correcting misperceptions of the field, for example that evolutionary researchers studying humans are genetic determinists.

Also, the field itself is not monolithic in belief, there are competing theoretical models and phenomena which are accepted to greater and lesser degrees. Several topics studied under an evolutionary umbrella are contentious or controversial, both within and outside the field.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

An international collaboration led by University of Michigan researcher Daniel J. Kruger, conducted The 2020 Survey of Evolutionary Scholars on the State of Human Evolutionary Science to counter misperceptions and document the extent of belief in contested areas.

Results from the largest survey ever of evolutionary researchers were just published online in Evolution and Human Behavior. “What do evolutionary researchers believe about human psychology and behavior?” documents that there are both core beliefs shared among evolutionary scholars, as well as phenomena accepted by varying proportions of scholars. There are also differences in the prevalence of beliefs between those trained in Anthropology and Psychology.

Nearly all participants believed that developmental environments substantially shape human adult psychology and behavior, refuting accusations of genetic determinism. Nearly all participants believed that there are differences in human psychology and behavior based on sex differences from sexual selection, and that there are individual differences in human psychology and behavior resulting from different genotypes. These concepts are currently controversial in mainstream social science.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

About three-quarters of participants believed that there are within-person differences in psychology and behavior across the menstrual cycle, an area which generates considerable debate and sometimes contradictory findings. Three-fifths believed that the human mind consists of domain-specific, context-sensitive modules, another focus of criticisms from outside and even from within the field. Psychologists were more likely to believe in these notions than Anthropologists were.

Only about 40% of participants believed that group-level selection has substantially contributed to human evolution. Belief in group selection has waxed and waned over the decades, with the rise of increasingly complex models such as multi-level selection.

Overall, the paper clarifies the actual positions of evolutionary researchers, which should help clarify misunderstandings and shows that there are competing perspectives even among those who identify as evolutionists. Scientific progress is facilitated when critics have an accurate understanding and can direct arguments and research at the beliefs which are actually held.

See the original article here

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Bayer Crop Circle in Golden Wheat
Making fertilizer from thin air: Bayer’s gene-editing innovation could dramatically cut chemical fertilizer use in growing food
Picture1
Viewpoint: How badly is the U.S. food-safety net fraying? FDA’s bungled handling of the tainted lettuce crisis deepens concerns over cuts to disease tracking and response
Screenshot-2026-11-03-at-12.31.18-PM
Gene editing once viewed with suspicion by UK  farmers, upwards of 90% now open to their sustainability benefits
Smiling-Woman-Over-Teal-Abstract-Shapes
Viewpoint: RFK Jr.’s latest foray into junk science: Even Kennedy’s hand-picked NIH director balks at appointment of crackpot mental health director
Reaching Through the Woven Sky
Challenging genetic modification rejectionists: Our evolving food system has relied on science for thousands of years
Neon Genome_ Fetal Dreamscape
The race to genetically engineer babies
Screenshot-2026-10-29-at-11.18.34-AM
Viewpoint: ‘Just the flu’: Skipping your child’s flu shot could be a fatal mistake
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Glossy Plastic Bag of Tokens and Labels
Viewpoint: How CNN got played by environmental activists pushing a plastics scare and litigation agenda
Screenshot-2026-11-02-at-11.34.28-AM
Farmers are collateral damage in the PFAS “forever chemicals” crossfire. Here’s what they need to know.
Red and Green Embroidered Campaign Caps
Viewpoint: The fragile (and often bizarre) MAHA-MAGA-far left health-and-chemicals coalition is fracturing. Here’s why
Screenshot 2026-10-27 at 10.32
“Do your own research”: What Medicare’s annual open enrollment circus teaches us about the seductive trap of DIY health and science
Screenshot-2026-10-28-at-3.00.44-PM
Viewpoint: Activist attacks on corporations increasingly depend on "attribution" science to target oil companies for global climate change
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.