Researcher ORCID Identifier
0000-0002-4230-5393
Document Type
Article
Program
Psychology (Pitzer)
Publication Date
2022
Keywords
Evolutionary psychology, Computationalism, Neo-Darwinism, Evolved developmental niche, Adaptationism
Abstract
Which evolutionary theory can best benefit psychological theory, research, and application? The most well-known school of evolutionary psychology has a narrow conceptual perspective (a.k.a., “Narrow Evolutionary Psychology” or NEP). Proponents of NEP have long argued that their brand of evolutionary psychology represents a full-fledged scientific revolution, with Buss (2020) recently likening NEP’s scientific impact to that of a Copernican or Darwinian paradigm shift. However, NEP stands on two traditions that are now the subjects of serious debate and revision: the neo-Darwinian adaptationist framework within evolutionary biology, and the computationalist “mind-as-computer” framework within cognitive science. Although NEP calls itself revolutionary, the significant revolutions taking place today in both evolutionary biology and cognitive science reveal NEP to be rooted in the orthodoxies of the past. We propose a more inclusive, developmental evolutionary psychology theory (DEPTH) better suited for our field in multiple ways, from acknowledging epigenesis to incorporating developmental science. To discern appropriate baselines for human nature and for human becoming, one must integrate developmental neuroscience, anthropology, and cognitive archeology. To be of value in addressing and remedying the challenges facing humanity, psychological theories must recognize the central importance of our plasticity, evolved developmental niche, and deep history.
Rights Information
© 2021 American Psychological Association
Terms of Use & License Information
DOI
10.1037/amp0000849
Recommended Citation
Narvaez, D., Moore, D. S., Witherington, D. C., Vandiver, T. I., & Lickliter, R. (2022). Evolving evolutionary psychology. American Psychologist, 77(3), 424–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000849
Comments
This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Famp0000849.