CHALLENGING EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF SEX DIFFERENCES AND RAPE: 8 E- _% G) v2 r( \( z
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY RESPONSE TO THORNHILL AND PALMER9 c4 v8 A9 S0 I3 S5 f+ F: c1 ^# X
Zoe D Peterson.
y& ^# b: c) n6 D. [The Journal of Sex Research. New York: Feb 2004. Vol.41, Iss. 1; pg. 118, 3 pgs
H" M ~) i6 _, F. [1 H
) S, z; B1 b) B' d, \
Abstract (Document Summary)% ^9 X5 @7 i6 Q4 ?) h
4 {7 [( b- i- I( o8 k! M
Peterson reviews Evolution, Gender, and Rape edited by Cheryl Brown Travis.
5 i2 K4 A& O4 y7 e( Y
5 s& k2 H1 m( P+ y W
Copyright Society for the Scientific Study of Sex Feb 2004
* _) k) w9 x2 z* d. p& K1 m
" ~" c8 Q9 |6 C8 _' DCHALLENGING EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES OF SEX DIFFERENCES AND RAPE: AN INTERDISCIPLINARY RESPONSE TO THORNHILL AND PALMER Evolution, Gender, and Rape. Edited by Cheryl Brown Travis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003, 455 pages. Paper, $24.95.
0 l& i1 i7 M7 N& ^& B! t( E
5 P1 S* Y4 P. v; h" eIn the preface to their book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, evolutionary psychologists Thornhill and Palmer (2000) state, "The social science theory of rape is based on empirically erroneous, even mythological, ideas about human development, behavior, and psychology .... The literature it has produced is largely political rather than scientific" (p. xiii). Thornhill and Palmer go on to offer the presumably apolitical and empirically accurate theory that human males and females have evolved to have fundamentally different characteristics and motivations and that rape, although socially unacceptable and horrendous for victims, is evolutionarily adaptive, and thus is an innate predisposition among human males. Their claims have generated tremendous controversy among academics and have garnered considerable attention in the popular media (e.g., see Goode, 2000; Rosenfeld, 2000; Vergano, 2000).
" B1 n6 R1 t& T! V u
" T6 {( m. M! v1 S3 j) }* T$ B/ ?Three years after the publication of A Natural History of Rape, editor Cheryl Brown Travis has assembled an impressive group of prominent contributors from a variety of disciplines including anthropology, ecology, evolutionary biology, psychology, and sociology for her collection, Evolution, Gender, and Rape. Although the authors' theoretical perspectives are, in many cases, vastly different from one another, they are united in the belief that Thornhill and Palmer are the ones who are guilty of bad science motivated by political ideology. Evolution, Gender, and Rape, which resulted from a shared disdain for Thornhill and Palmer's theory, is a highly valuable collection of writings. It commendably addresses the complexity of concepts such as gender and rape, and it simultaneously provides real insights about evolutionary theory, especially as it relates to gender and rape.
4 h6 t: Z9 X* c, j6 {2 v6 T' J5 ]' j, k
Evolutionary psychologists and their supporters will find no kindred spirits among this book's contributors. The authors' approaches range from dispassionate but thorough critiques of Thornhill and Palmer's data to outright contempt for evolutionary psychology as a whole (e.g., in his chapter, Coyne states, "If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly" [p. 171]).
5 ?/ E4 m' u2 ]: Q( j
, @) g4 S- ^9 w% J9 {
Readers who are not enamored with evolutionary psychology will likely value the fact that the chapter authors provide strong and convincing empirical support for their opposition to the claims made by Thornhill and Palmer and other evolutionary psychologists. Further, in most cases the authors' discussions and critiques are clear and concise enough to be understood by social scientists who lack extensive knowledge of evolutionary theory.
4 }( h1 S) I' X) V0 X7 I2 H2 R0 ~4 l. S7 c4 Z3 Y9 e% [/ `/ F
The book is organized into three sections; however, the distinctness of the sections is not always obvious. Because most of the chapter authors seem so eager to point out the problems with Thornhill and Palmer's theory, almost all chapters could accurately fall under the heading, "Why Thornhill and Palmer Are Wrong." In fact, the chapter authors sometimes repeat each other's arguments in their apparent enthusiasm over dismantling Thornhill and Palmer's theory and data. Nevertheless, each chapter does offer some unique perspectives on the issues raised by evolutionary psychology.
5 q3 b- C& b/ |) F6 w9 O
' P8 z* T3 _ I0 m1 a4 n
In the first section of the book, "Evolutionary Models and Gender," the authors of the six chapters discuss problems with the theories and methods used by evolutionary psychologists. Travis introduces this section by providing a summary of Thornhill and Palmer's argument and an overview of the media attention that followed the publication of their book. She also offers a brief but useful primer in the principles of evolutionary theory and the misapplication of those principles by evolutionary psychologists.
; J/ f7 W8 {. f/ p6 l) n9 [9 A* ]. M$ n6 l% r! S
Drea and Wallen, the authors of chapter 2, and Gowaty, the author of chapter 3, offer a feminist approach to evolutionary theory, and they provide evidence that the female role in natural selection is less passive than is acknowledged by Thornhill and Palmer's androcentric theory. These two chapters are especially useful in challenging the mutual exclusivity of politics and science as implied by Thornhill and Palmer. Drea and Wallen and Gowaty make the important and often overlooked point that feminists need not be antievolution, just as evolutionists cannot claim to be apolitical.
8 b: t- g" p& ^4 w$ |
2 i! o8 ~3 C/ H& A4 ^) [5 dIn chapter 4, Shields and Steinke critique Thornhill and Palmer's reliance on self-report data, especially their use of self-report methods to draw conclusions about concepts that operate outside of people's conscious awareness. In chapter 5, Tobach and Reed further critique evolutionary psychologists' methods, particularly by pointing out the problem of zoomorphism (the attribution of nonhuman animal characteristics to humans). For example, they criticize Thornhill and Palmer for using data from insects to draw conclusions about the genetic basis for human behavior.
5 L* } l O: Z# F8 k, p
6 N. ^6 I) b$ r, T5 XVickers and Kitcher argue in chapter 6 that evolutionary biologists have been careful and exacting in their study of nonhuman animals, and they criticize evolutionary psychologists for failing to apply those same standards to the study of humans. They also object to the fact that evolutionary psychology has ignored the role of cultural transmission when studying human behaviors.
7 R3 |/ h4 l8 N5 Q) K, K, Y- b1 ?/ k, Q2 o! A# i/ m& Z
The second section of the book, "Critiquing Evolutionary Models of Rape," is devoted to identifying problems specifically associated with evolutionary theories of rape. For example, in chapter 7, Coyne contends that Thornhill and Palmer's line of reasoning is fraught with scientific errors and lacks empirical refutability. Coyne's arguments are particularly convincing because, as an evolutionary biologist, he is in an ideal position to critique Thornhill and Palmer's misapplications of evolutionary theory. In chapter 8, Koss also criticizes Thornhil] and Palmer's data. She expertly evaluates the rape data used by Thornhill and Palmer to support their theory and finds the data to be lacking in reliability, validity, and generalizability. Like Coyne, Travis argues in chapter 9 that Thornhill and Palmer's position involves a distortion of evolutionary theory. For example, Travis analyzes the costs and benefits of rape as a reproductive strategy and determines that rape is unlikely to be an efficient means of ensuring surviving offspring.
; S" Y4 W7 F% Y0 C9 U' u& p3 G! X; h5 \' W1 A
Kimmel, the author of chapter 10, accuses Thornhill and Palmer of both bad science and bad politics. he makes an important point that is not acknowledged by the other contributors: An evolutionary theory of rape is a form of male bashing in that it implicitly suggests that all men are genetically predisposed to rape. Kimmel describes Thornhill and Palmer's book as "resolutely and relentlessly anti-male" (p. 231).
7 D h _% b5 s' x" Q- S+ D
$ k8 V, v% {: d( RThe final section of the book, "Integrative and Cultural Models of Gender and Rape," is perhaps the most interesting of the three sections because the authors move beyond just criticizing Thornhill and Palmer's approach-although all authors do offer at least some critique-to actually providing alternative conceptualizations of gender and rape.
z" T9 q# p, k/ T
- V7 Y- F: L0 {+ h
In chapter 12, Eagly and Wood compare evolutionary theory and social structural theory in terms of the theories' ability to explain the origin of sex differences. A noteworthy contribution of this chapter is the authors' reanalysis of cross-cultural data collected by the noted evolutionary psychologist David Buss and his colleagues (Buss et al., 1990). Eagly and Wood conclude, contrary to Buss, that the cross-cultural data are actually more consistent with social structural theory than with evolutionary theory.
/ P: Z$ a7 j8 n* {! e; }$ p+ y. ]
4 A0 V! K( ~% m( ?3 uMackey, the author of chapter 13, makes the interesting and potentially controversial point that rape is unlikely to be an effective strategy for reproduction because the presence of a social father is important to ensuring a child's well-being and survival. Mackey supports this claim with several pieces of data, including research findings demonstrating that countries' rates of out-of-wedlock birth are positively related to rates of violent crime and levels of STDs. Mackey's argument, although intriguing, is weakened by his unavoidable reliance on such correlational data, which is laden with possible confounds.
8 G" I; h0 C- P. `
. c4 I0 i- o. q0 X) l8 _In chapter 14, Sanday provides fascinating anthropological evidence that convincingly challenges Thornhill and Palmer's claim that rape is a universal, and thus genetically determined, phenomenon. Sanday contrasts the Minangkabau of West Sumatra, a virtually rape-free society, with the U.S., a rape-prone society. Martin, the author of chapter 15, also challenges the universality of rape. She highlights the culturally constructed nature of human concepts such as rape. Her examination of differences in conceptualizations of rape across culture and time is a particularly valuable contribution to the book.
3 o2 T% x1 F t1 g
( u! i/ a6 b& C! C; ^: uIn Chapter 16, White and Post offer a comprehensive model for conceptualizing rape, which is built upon a model of gendered violence proposed by White and Kowalski (1998). The model considers causal factors on multiple levels, including the sociocultural, social network, dyadic, situational, and individual levels. White and Post's model is ambitious and valuable in its ability to illuminate the complexity of the concept of rape; however, additional discussion of specific applications for the model would have further enhanced the chapter.
8 Y Z% b+ v6 l. }" F+ ~
V' e% t$ z" Z' ]Finally, in chapter 17, Rosser provides a summary and conclusion to the book as a whole. She states that evolutionary psychology "is very appealing to popular audiences because it provides a simple, pseudoscientific explanation for the complex phenomenon of sex and violence known as rape" (p. 421). In keeping with Rosser's view, it is evident that Travis's motivation to compile this book was sparked, at least in part, by what she saw as the undeserved media captivation surrounding Thornhill and Palmer's arguments. If Rosser is correct, then sadly, the complex and thoughtful insights provided in this book are likely to go unnoticed by popular audiences.
) e- M6 z! O- k L, f! }
- i) B3 W% ]2 A) TREFERENCES
2 ^, o- Q- h6 }0 Z% C: C, q- x
# ]) D7 J6 \0 q' O3 I% JBuss, D. M., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
) M7 X, ?! w M; B( b0 `* |! t) Z9 l
Goode, E. (2000, March 14). Human nature: Born or made? The New York Times, p. Fl.
1 I0 s c0 m, R" c! ORosenfeld, M. (2000, January 28). The male animal: Two scientists explain rape as a natural behavior and cause an unnatural uproar. The Washington Post, p. CO I.
# N7 B1 K( O7 N. u6 @- |
Thornhill, R., Si Palmer, C. T. (2000). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6 g' O! K+ T. n, N' K! Q
Vergano, D. (2000, January 18). "Natural, biological" theory of rape creates instant storm. USA Today, p. 8D.
" A# \, C# [7 o' `White, J. W., & Kowalski, R. M. (1998). Male violence toward women: An integrative perspective. In R. Green & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 205-229). New York: Academic Press.
# r% r! w: {7 G! |' u) o
' O4 l9 C& ^! `( `[Author Affiliation]
4 L1 W* t$ R# [& q$ c
1 r( T- V- _: j3 ]Reviewed by Zoe D. Peterson, M.A., University of Kansas, Department of Psychology, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045; e-mail:
zoep@ku.edu.
