There has been a conceptual revolution in the biological sciences over the past several decades. Evidence from genetics, embryology, and developmental biology has converged to offer a more epigenetic, contingent, and dynamic view of how organisms develop. Despite these advances, arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, predeterministic approach to the study of human behavior and development have become increasingly evident in the psychological sciences during this time. In this article, the authors review recent advances in genetics, embryology, and developmental biology that have transformed contemporary developmental and evolutionary theory and explore how these advances challenge gene-centered explanations of human behavior that ignore the complex, highly coordinated system of regulatory dynamics involved in development and evolution.The prestige of success enjoyed by the gene theory might become a hindrance to the understanding of development by directing our attention solely to the genome. . . . Already we have theories that refer the processes of development to genic action and regard the whole performance as no more than the realization of the potencies of the genes. Such theories are altogether too one-sided. (Harrison, 1937, p. 370) There is growing consensus in popular culture that by understanding genes and the mutual interactions of the proteins derived from them it is possible to understand all of life, including human nature. Psychology is no stranger to this perspective. As most psychologists are aware, a blend of ethology and sociobiology known as evolutionary psychology has gained increasing attention and recognition over the past several decades. Arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, evolutionary approach to the study of human behavior have become increasingly evident in mainstream psychology journals (i.e., Buss & Schmitt, 1993;Buss & Shackelford, 1997;Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a;Ellis, 1998;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990a), and popular texts promoting this perspective have likewise flourished in recent years (i.e., Allman, 1994;Buss, 2000;Dennett, 1995;Gazzaniga, 1992;Pinker, 1994Pinker, , 1997Pinker, , 2002R. Wright, 1994). Fueled in large part by the influence of sociobiology on the behavioral sciences over the past several decades, proponents of evolutionary psychology assert that applying insights from evolutionary theory to explanations of human behavior will stimulate more fruitful research programs and provide a powerful framework for discovering evolved psychological mechanisms thought to be forged by natural selection operating over thousands of generations (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000Buss, 1989Buss, , 1991Charlesworth, 1986;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990b).Ideas gleaned from evolutionary biology have certainly influenced theory building in psychology (see Cairns, 1998;Cairns, Gariepy, & Hood, 1990;Edelman, 1989;Gottlieb, 1991Johnston, 1985;Sameroff, 1983). There is little doubt that the incorporation of evolutionary principles and perspectives into the psychological sc...

Information presented redundantly and in temporal synchrony across sensory modalities (intersensory redundancy) selectively recruits attention and facilitates perceptual learning in human infants. This comparative study examined whether intersensory redundancy also facilitates perceptual learning prenatally. The authors assessed quail (Colinus virginianus) embryos' ability to learn a maternal call when it was (a) unimodal, (b) concurrent but asynchronous with patterned light, or (c) redundant and synchronous with patterned light. Chicks' preference for the familiar over a novel maternal call was assessed 24 hr following hatching. Chicks receiving redundant, synchronous stimulation as embryos learned the call 4 times faster than those who received unimodal exposure. Chicks who received asynchronous bimodal stimulation showed no evidence of learning. These results provide the first evidence that embryos are sensitive to redundant, bimodal information and that it can facilitate learning during the prenatal period.

This article proposes an approach to understanding men's abuse of their intimate partners. The authors suggest that the concept of masculine gender role stress (MGRS) might be useful in identifying men who are predisposed to become abusive with their intimate partners. College men who scored either high or low on an MGRS scale were assessed, and their attributions, affect, and conflict resolution behavior toward their intimate female partners were examined. Participants were presented with masculine-gender-relevant and masculine-gender-irrelevant vignettes involving disputes with their intimate female partners. Results indicated that men high in MGRS attributed greater negative intent; expressed more irritation, anger, and jealousy; and endorsed aggressive responding more often than did men low in MGRS. Implications of MGRS and masculine relevance of conflicts for understanding male abusive behavior are discussed.Male abusiveness and violence against women have often been attributed to men's adherence to their understanding of culturally defined masculinity (Brooks & Silverstein, 1995;Doyle, 1989). According to this reasoning, men are socialized to be competitive and to develop power and control strategies that encourage expressions of anger and curtail expressions of vulnerability (Doyle, 1989;Eisler & Blalock, 1991). Studies have suggested that strong identification with these stereotyped masculine gender roles may be responsible, in part, for men's violence against women in their intimate relationships (for reviews, see Smith, 1990;Sugarman & Frankel, 1996). Finn (1986) reported that college men who held traditional masculine attitudes about the superior status and authority of men were more likely to endorse marital violence by husbands against their wives. In addition, men who strongly endorsed traditional masculine roles were more likely to physically abuse their female dating partners (Bernard,

No abstract

Information presented concurrently and redundantly to 2 or more senses (intersensory redundancy) has been shown to recruit attention and promote perceptual learning of amodal stimulus properties in animal embryos and human infants. This study examined whether the facilitative effect of intersensory redundancy also extends to the domain of memory. We assessed bobwhite quail chicks' ability to remember and prefer an individual maternal call presented either unimodally or redundantly and synchronously with patterned light during the period prior to hatching. Embryos provided with unimodal auditory exposure failed to prefer the familiar call over a novel maternal call postnatally at 48 hr and 72 hr following exposure. In contrast, embryos provided with redundant, synchronous audiovisual stimulation significantly preferred the familiar call at 48 hr following exposure, but not at 72 hr. A second experiment provided chicks with a single 10‐min refamiliarization with the familiar call at either 48 hr or 72 hr following hatching. Chicks given only unimodal auditory exposure prior to hatching did not appear to benefit from this brief postnatal refamiliarization, showing no preference for the familiar call at either 72 or 96 hr. Chicks that received redundant audiovisual stimulation prenatally showed a significant preference for the familiar call (following the brief reexpo sure 24 hr earlier) at both 72 and 96 hr of age. These results are the first to demonstrate that redundantly specified information is remembered longer and reactivated more easily than the same information presented unimodally. These findings provide further evidence of the salience of intersensory redundancy in guiding selective attention and perceptual learning during early development.