Serious allegations have been made against an evolutionary psychologist , many of whose field of study have attract far-flung popular attention . Other researchers have take exception the University of South Brittany’sDr Nicolas Guéguento grow evidence his studies were actually done . So far , he has been reluctant or ineffectual to back them up . As one of the most prolific and gamey - profile scientists in a field of force that is already highly disputed , Guéguen ’s position could have logical implication for a whole area of science .
Regardless of whether you ’ve heard of Guéguen ’s papers , you ’ve surely heard of others like them . From investigations of the most efficacious waysto flirtto testing whether padded brassiere serve female hitchhikers get a ride , Guéguen has released afloodof publications on everyone ’s favorite issue : sex and how it channelize our interactions . Not surprisingly , many of these have shew popular in the non - scientific medium . Guéguen ’s employment support national , as well as grammatical gender , stereotypes .
Yet the rank volume of Guéguen ’s work is one of the factors turn on suspicion the data was simply made up , potentially raising boastful interrogative sentence for his field , and indeed our perspective of gendered behaviors .
Nick Brown , of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands , and Northeastern University’sDr James Heatherswere ab initio amused by a Guéguen study report men were more helpful to women with attractive haircut , but noticed inconsistencies in the calculations . They then observe that the burden Guéguen report are astonishingly expectant for social science study , which commonly find pretty subtle results . Further digging found such problem are widespread in Guéguen ’s oeuvre . It ’s also hard to explain how he publishes so many more written document than most scientists , despite listing few Centennial State - authors .
Humans are unimpeachably a mix of our biology , mold by hundreds of millions of twelvemonth of phylogeny , and socialization . It seems a safe bet that both mold our psychology . What is much intemperate to say is how much influence each has . Evolutionary psychologyexplores how common human trait and behavior might have helped our ancestors come through and breed , get their intrenchment in our genome .
Unfortunately , critics argue , many evolutionary psychologists start up with a diagonal that says a particular behavior has evolutionary roots , dismiss social influences , and set out to prove it . In picky , evo - psych , as it is often called , seems to drop a lot of time evidence us gendered roles are natural . In this prospect of the world , humankind are born to hound food and sex , while women are naturally passive , seeking partners who will nurture and protect them , rather than wanting to mold their own way in the earth .
Most evolutionary psychologistsdeny it , but criticschargethat by introduce these characteristics as lifelike , evo - psych also makes them out to be good . Those who do n’t fit the mold – gay people , women who enjoy fooling sexual urge etc – are see as freaks , diverging from the innate course of biology .
Whether or not this is a fair representation of evo - psych in oecumenical , it sure enough applies to much of Guéguen ’s output . Although some of his papers – for example a study on howmusic affectsconsumer behaviour – have no implications for sexual political sympathies , many others do . Guéguen ’s work on how woman are more likely to answer favourably whenlightly touchedon the limb is beloved by creepers seeking to legitimize intimate molestation .
Brown and Heathers also note many of these papers , even if real , would elevate serious honourable fear , for example break to accredit co - researchers , and put junior students in serious or degrading state of affairs .
Those allegations are a subject for ethics committees , although enquiry journals should belike pay more care to such matter in time to come .
However , if Brown and Heathers are ripe that some or all of Guéguen ’s study is invented , there are big question for the compeer commentator who approved issue . Such a close would really put the spotlight on those doing related work because if the reviewers could n’t spot jerry-built body of work that chance to fit their biases , their own research see confutative .
Even in the worst case scenario , the criticisms may not discredit the entire field of evolutionary psychology , but they ’re bad news for its most prominent subfield . In which case , the whole estimate that our copulate behavior owes more to natural excerpt than the order in which we are raised would appear shaky .
[ H / T : New York Magazine ]
