Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hampton, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Domain Mismatches, Scruffy Engineering, Exaptations and Spandrels

Simon Jonathan Hampton

University of East Anglia s.hampton{at}uea.ac.uk

Evolutionary psychology invokes the concept of a mismatch between the past and the present with regard to characteristics of the environment whilst maintaining that human minds are comprised of the same psychological adaptations. This paper addresses the question ‘how do "old" adaptations successfully accommodate novel environments?’ An answer comes by recourse to Gould’s (1991, 1997; Gould & Lewontin, 1979; Gould & Vbra, 1982) terms ‘exaptation’ and ‘spandrel’. Ostensibly antithetical to these ideas, I show how evolutionary psychology invites their use. Unless evolutionary psychology wants to deny the orthodox claims that adaptations are not optimally designed and that humans exhibit novel behaviours in terms of precedent in natural history, a consequence of this is that there is no evolutionary account of some common and important behaviours. Alternatively, if evolutionary psychology as a form of ‘strong’ adaptationism insists that novel behaviours are the product of directly selected adaptations, I examine the suggestion that adaptations are ‘ scruffily’ engineered, and show how this undermines the aspirations of the adaptationist programme in psychology as it has been expressed by Tooby and Cosmides (1992, 1995).

Key Words: by-products • domain mismatch • evolutionary psychology • exaptations • scruffy engineering • spandrels

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 147-166 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354304042014


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Phil Trans R Soc BHome page
A. I Houston, J. M McNamara, and M. D Steer
Do we expect natural selection to produce rational behaviour?
Phil Trans R Soc B, September 29, 2007; 362(1485): 1531 - 1543.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]