On the use of life history theory in evolutionary psychology

We critically review the use of the term life history theory in recent publications on evolutionary psychology, focusing on how the idea of a fast-slow continuum is deployed in that literature. We raise four issues: First, concerning plasticity, should we expect the effects of plasticity on the developmental response of a trait to mirror the effects of selection on the mean of that trait? We conclude that we should not. Do only plastic responses to harsh or unpredictable environments accelerate maturation, or are there plausible alternatives, such as nutrition? In many situations better nutrition is a plausible alternative. Second, how should we conceive of the harshness of an environment? It has several important dimensions. It could mean an increase in the mean mortality rate, a decrease in the mean growth rate or fertility rate, or increases in the variances of any of those rates. Our judgement of harshness will also be affected by the distribution of such effects across patches in space and through generations in time. The combination and distribution of effects make important differences to predictions. Third, where did the fast-slow idea come from, and how much does it explain? It was initially detected in comparisons across higher taxonomic levels, whose relevance to variation among individuals is unclear and where it fails to explain much of the variation. Fourth, what sorts of processes could generate the fast-slow pattern? Here we expand on insights mentioned earlier in passing to make clear how spatial population structure and class effects generate alternative predictions. We conclude with some thoughts on the nature of theories and research strategies and on how one might respond to empirical puzzles.