| Title |
How Conservative Are Evolutionary Anthropologists?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-012-9150-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henry F. Lyle, Eric A. Smith |
| Abstract |
The application of evolutionary theory to human behavior has elicited a variety of critiques, some of which charge that this approach expresses or encourages conservative or reactionary political agendas. In a survey of graduate students in psychology, Tybur, Miller, and Gangestad (Human Nature, 18, 313-328, 2007) found that the political attitudes of those who use an evolutionary approach did not differ from those of other psychology grad students. Here, we present results from a directed online survey of a broad sample of graduate students in anthropology that assays political views. We found that evolutionary anthropology graduate students were very liberal in their political beliefs, overwhelmingly voted for a liberal U.S. presidential candidate in the 2008 election, and identified with liberal political parties; in this, they were almost indistinguishable from non-evolutionary anthropology students. Our results contradict the view that evolutionary anthropologists hold conservative or reactionary political views. We discuss some possible reasons for the persistence of this view in terms of the sociology of science. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 15% |
| Brazil | 1 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 10 | 36% |
| Psychology | 6 | 21% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,396,880
of 24,938,276 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#265
of 546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,072
of 175,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,938,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 175,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.