%0 Journal Article %1 Tybur.200712 %A Tybur, Joshua M. %A Miller, Geoffrey F. %A Gangestad, Steven W. %D 2007/12 %J Human Nature %K -- Attitudes;HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY attitudes;CONSPIRACY behavior;DOCTOR degree;GRADUATE evolution;HYPOTHESIS;Adaptationism;Sociology of philosophy psychology;SOCIOBIOLOGY;POLITICAL science students;SOCIAL theories;SCIENTISTS %N 4 %P 313--328 %T Testing the Controversy %V 18 %X Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Human Nature is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

@article{Tybur.200712, abstract = {Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the {\^a}€œadaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists{\^a}€ stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Human Nature is the property of Springer Science {\&} Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)}, added-at = {2014-08-12T16:44:19.000+0200}, author = {Tybur, Joshua M. and Miller, Geoffrey F. and Gangestad, Steven W.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2611431edb42c13d2afc6881069ceaade/giedenbacher}, interhash = {30aedbadbdf32473a4b45efe6431cbb6}, intrahash = {611431edb42c13d2afc6881069ceaade}, issn = {10456767}, journal = {Human Nature}, keywords = {-- Attitudes;HUMAN EVOLUTIONARY attitudes;CONSPIRACY behavior;DOCTOR degree;GRADUATE evolution;HYPOTHESIS;Adaptationism;Sociology of philosophy psychology;SOCIOBIOLOGY;POLITICAL science students;SOCIAL theories;SCIENTISTS}, number = 4, pages = {313--328}, timestamp = {2014-08-12T16:44:19.000+0200}, title = {Testing the Controversy}, volume = 18, year = {2007/12} }