Cited by 242Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorLanguage and cultural evolutionAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology

Open access
Bolhuis, Johan J., Brown, Gillian R., Richardson, Robert C., Laland, Kevin N.·2011·PLoS Biology

Abstract

Evolutionary Psychology (EP) views the human mind as organized into many modules, each underpinned by psychological adaptations designed to solve problems faced by our Pleistocene ancestors. We argue that the key tenets of the established EP paradigm require modification in the light of recent findings from a number of disciplines, including human genetics, evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, and paleoecology. For instance, many human genes have been subject to recent selective sweeps; humans play an active, constructive role in co-directing their own development and evolution; and experimental evidence often favours a general process, rather than a modular account, of cognition. A redefined EP could use the theoretical insights of modern evolutionary biology as a rich source of hypotheses concerning the human mind, and could exploit novel methods from a variety of adjacent research fields.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109

Cites

136 of 136 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A science of change can occur only when the distinction between evolutionary psychology and the standard social science model is depolarized.

    “Only when we depolarize the distinction between EP and the SSSM can a science of change occur (Bolhuis et al. 2011; Buller 2005; Scher & Rauscher 2002; Wilson 2002b).”

    From Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change (2014) · cites this paper as Bolhuis et al. 2011

    In “Towards a New Science of the Evolution of the Mind” (page unavailable), the paper calls for methodological and conceptual integration of evolutionary psychology with adjacent fields. Its Conclusions likewise advocate a broader, multidisciplinary approach. It does not say that depolarizing the distinction between EP and the standard social science model is the only way a science of change can occur. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is no 'intelligent', 'executive' or indeed 'Fodorian' bit of the brain that holds the key to cognitive evolution.

    “As a corollary, there is no ‘intelligent’, ‘executive’ or indeed ‘Fodorian’ [130] bit of the brain that holds the key to cognitive evolution.”

    From Embodied cognitive evolution and the cerebellum (2012) · cites this paper as [130]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [10]Fodor J. A 2000 The mind doesn't work that way. Cambridge, MA MIT Press
  2. [54]Plomin R DeFries J. C McClearn G. E McGuffin P 2000 Behavioral Genetics.Fourth edition. New York Worth Publishers
  3. [61]Sperber D 1994 Understanding verbal understanding. Khalfa J What is intelligence? Cambridge Cambridge University Press 179 198
  4. [101]Reader S. M Laland K. N 2003 Animal innovation. Oxford Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bolhuis, J. J., Brown, G. R., Richardson, R. C., & Laland, K. N.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of St Andrews (GB)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
Corresponding author
  • Bolhuis, Johan J.
  • Laland, Kevin N.
Venue
PLoS Biology
Published
2011-07-19
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e1001109
ISSN
  • 1544-9173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-7885
OpenAlex
W1993241390
Cited by
242
References
136
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Cincinnati
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Universiteit Utrecht
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/D015812/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
evolutionary psychology, modularity of mind, psychological adjustment, human genetics, cognitive neuroscience, paleoecology, human evolution, Darwinian theory
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Animals, Cognition, Biological Evolution, Humans, Psychology

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