Cited by 214Evolution and Science EducationScience Education and PedagogyPhilosophy and History of Science

The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning

Open access
Shtulman, Andrew, Schulz, Laura·2008·Cognitive Science

Abstract

Historians of science have pointed to essentialist beliefs about species as major impediments to the discovery of natural selection. The present study investigated whether such beliefs are impediments to learning this concept as well. Participants (43 children aged 4-9 and 34 adults) were asked to judge the variability of various behavioral and anatomical properties across different members of the same species. Adults who accepted within-species variation-both actual and potential-were significantly more likely to demonstrate a selection-based understanding of evolution than adults who denied within-species variation. The latter demonstrated an alternative, incorrect understanding of evolution and produced response patterns that were both quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those produced by preschool-aged children. Overall, it is argued that psychological essentialism, although a useful bias for drawing species-wide inductions, leads individuals to devalue within-species variation and, consequently, to fail to understand natural selection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03640210801897864

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Psychological essentialism regularly interferes with a scientifically informed biological understanding.

    “Nevertheless, in spite of the obvious adaptive rationality of this cognitive predisposition, 83 psychological essentialism regularly interferes with a scientifically informed biological 84 understanding [27].”

    From Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition (2015) · cites this paper as [27]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Shtulman, Andrew
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-09
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
1049-1062
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
OpenAlex
W2112404013
Cited by
214
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
55.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
James S. McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Evolution and Science Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
psychological essentialism, evolutionary reasoning, natural selection, intraspecific variation, species concept, misconceptions about evolution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review