Interaction between Biological and Cultural Factors in Human Social Behavior

  • Philip E. Vernon


Professor Rushton has produced a scholarly, well-argued, and up-to-date account of the present state of sociobiology—that is, the view that not only the abilities but also the main traits underlying human social behavior have a substantial genetic component and that they have evolved among animals and humans according to Darwinian theory of natural selection. One of the reasons why other expositions by Wilson (1975) and Campbell (1975) have been criticized is that they are hghly speculative, lacking in experimental and other forms of scientific evidence. Rushton has culled the literature very widely, all the way from animal and cross-cultural psychology and historical anthropology to statistical studies of individual differences. Thus most of his claims are accompanied by relevant confirmatory evidence. The paper, therefore, should be of considerable interest and value to psychologists and students.


Darwinian Theory Human Social Behavior Main Trait Western Industrial Nation Checkered History 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Campbell, D. T. On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 1103–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Darlington, C. D. The evolution of man and society. London: Allen & Unwin, 1969.Google Scholar
  4. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.Google Scholar
  5. Durbin, E. F. M., & Bowlby, J. Personal aggressiveness and war. London: Kegan Paul, 1939.Google Scholar
  6. Eysenck, H. J. The inequality of man. London: Temple Smith, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. Jensen, A. R. Educability and group differences. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. Loehlin, J. C., & Nichols, R. C. Heredity, environment, and personality. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. McDougall, W. An introduction to social psychology. London: Methuen, 1908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.Google Scholar
  11. Nichols, R. C. Heredity and environment: Major findings from twin studies of ability, personality, and interests. Conference of the American Psychological Association, invited address, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Rushton, J. P., Jackson, D. N., & Paunonen, S. V. Personality: Nomothetic or idiographic? A response to Kenwrick and Stringfield. Psychological Review, 1981, 88, 582–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vernon, P. E. Personality assessment: A critical survey. London, Methuen, 1964.Google Scholar
  14. Vernon, P. E. The abilities and achievements of orientals in North America. New York: Academic press, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Wispé, L. G., & Thompson, J. N. The war between words: Biological vs. social evolution. American Psychologist, 1976, 31, 341–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip E. Vernon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations