An Introduction to Comparative Evolutionary Psychology

Abstract

Previously we (Vonk and Shackelford, 2012, in press) proposed an integration of comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology into a new field of "comparative evolutionary psychology." This integrative discipline incorporates principles from ethology, ecology, biology, anthropology, and psychology, broadly defined. We present in this special issue a collection of original empirical and theoretical review articles in which leading researchers propose ways to successfully integrate comparative and evolutionary approaches within their particular areas of study. We showcase the key contributions of these articles and highlight several empirical and theoretical challenges, as well as key future directions, for comparative evolutionary psychology. A Unified Comparative Evolutionary PsychologyRecently, Vonk and Shackelford (2012) proposed a unification of comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology into a new field, comparative evolutionary psychology. Although this was not the first of such proposals, Vonk and Shackelford's was more integrative than prior proposals (see Burghardt, this issue). Our primary emphasis was to bridge some of the gaps between researchers with disparate goals and approaches. For instance, we proposed that a focus on evolutionary theory with a comparative approach can help to integrate the work of field researchers and laboratory researchers, human-centered researchers and researchers of animals, behaviorists and cognitivists, and nomothetic researchers and ideographic researchers. We noted that both comparative psychologists and evolutionary psychologists sometimes adopt too narrow a focus; either neglecting interesting differences between species in the search for continuity (comparative psychology) or neglecting other species altogether (evolutionary psychology), sometimes with a blind eye to the phylogenetic history of our own and other species.Introduction to comparative evolutionary psychology

Comparative cognition: Practical shortcomings and some potential ways forward.

“…Second, in the past few decades, comparative psychologists have developed new tools to investigate the cognitive mechanisms underlying animal behaviour and have put increasing effort in designing methodologies that are applicable across multiple species (Auersperg et al, 2012; Bond, Kamil, & Balda, 2003; Schloegl et al, 2009). At the same time, evolutionary biologists have developed methods to quantify the phylogenetic distribution of phenotypic traits, including cognitive ability (MacLean et al, 2012; MacLean & Nunn, 2017; Vonk & Shackelford, 2013). Advocates such as MacLean and colleagues (2012) have strongly stated that the phylogenetic technique ought to be implemented because it provides us with a tool kit that includes tests of correlated trait evolution, phylogenetic signal, and ancestral state reconstruction to address patterns of trait evolution or the relationship between a set of traits.…”

Why isn't everyone an evolutionary psychologist?

“…Perhaps we might make more headway by more frequently acknowledging that evolutionary hypotheses are actually quite difficult to test (as have Confer et al, 2010 , for example), and that psychological studies are but one of many lines of converging evidence that are helping to put together the pieces of the puzzle. It is probably a fair criticism of our field that we rely too heavily on uncovering signs of special design of human psychological mechanisms as evidence of their evolution, and too little on examining the mechanism across species (Vonk and Shackelford, 2013 ). Other fields that are interested in the evolution of behavioral mechanisms routinely make phylogenetic comparisons, to test hypotheses.…”