| In four investigations using Likert-scale questionnaires and think-aloud protocols with 173 university students in total, the willingness to accept evolutionary explanations regarding plant, animal, and human characteristics was examined. Participants were presented with evolutionary explanations for features and behaviors and were asked to rate how much they agreed with evolution as an explanation for each scenario. Some were also asked to explain their reasoning in think-aloud protocols or to discuss item ratings with one another. Overall, participants thought evolutionary explanations appropriate, with median ratings in the upper quarter of the rating scale. They were slightly more willing to ascribe evolutionary explanations to plant than to human phenomena; however, this general effect was mediated by more specific aspects of the evolutionary scenarios in question.; Participants who were generally negative regarding evolution were particularly negative towards human evolution. Those who were positive or neutral towards evolution in general were more willing to accept human evolution, but were more likely to use evolution to explain similarities between humans and other species than to explain particular human adaptations. For example, they were more likely to agree that evolution is responsible for the DNA similarities between humans and chimpanzees than that evolution is responsible for human behavioral characteristics, such as the fight or flight response. Think-aloud protocols suggest that, while people are more familiar with human evolutionary relationships than plant evolutionary relationships, they may be less likely to see human characteristics as adaptively valuable.; One plausible explanation for these patterns is that an evolutionary explanation is judged jointly by its availability in an individual's memory and its plausibility (i.e., its congruence with the individual's worldview). Popular media coverage, with its focus on controversy and litigation, makes it likely that awareness of human evolution is high, compared with plant evolution (which may not even "enter the radar screen" when most people think of evolution). Some aspects of human evolution, such as the basic relationship between all primates, may have become so pedestrian that they do not threaten many individuals' worldviews. However, even for those positively disposed towards evolution, extending the ramifications of human evolution by suggesting that evolution shapes our behaviors and physical traits may pose a threat to their sense of personal agency. This threat is not associated with plant evolution. |
