KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2

EVRİMSEL PSİKOLOJİ ALANINDA 1894-2024 YILLARI ARASINDA YAPILAN ARAŞTIRMALARIN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ

BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY BETWEEN 1894 AND 2024

Fırat Koç(HİTİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8558-6308
Sayfa
1540–1556
Yayın Tarihi
2025-10-24
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular, evrimsel psikolojinin hem teorik zenginliğini hem de çağdaş meselelerle (ör.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışma, evrimsel psikoloji alanında 1894–2024 yılları arasında yayımlanan literatürü bibliyometrik yöntemlerle analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Scopus veri tabanında indekslenen 9.679 yayın üzerinden gerçekleştirilen analizde, alandaki yayınların yıllara, ülkelere, kurumlara, yazarlar ile anahtar kelimelere göre dağılımı değerlendirilmiş; alandaki gelişim eğilimleri ortaya konmuştur.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular, evrimsel psikolojinin hem teorik zenginliğini hem de çağdaş meselelerle (ör.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Bibliyometrik Analiz · Atıf Analizi · Evrimsel Psikoloji

Özet

Bu çalışma, evrimsel psikoloji alanında 1894–2024 yılları arasında yayımlanan literatürü bibliyometrik yöntemlerle analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Scopus veri tabanında indekslenen 9.679 yayın üzerinden gerçekleştirilen analizde, alandaki yayınların yıllara, ülkelere, kurumlara, yazarlar ile anahtar kelimelere göre dağılımı değerlendirilmiş; alandaki gelişim eğilimleri ortaya konmuştur. Analizlerde VOSviewer yazılımı kullanılarak işbirliği ağları, atıf analizleri ve anahtar kelime kümeleri görselleştirilmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, en fazla yayın 2012 yılında yapılmış, yayın türü olarak ise makaleler (%63,93) öne çıkmıştır. En aktif kurum University of California, Los Angeles; en üretken yazar ise Shackelford olarak belirlenmiştir. “Bayes Factors” en çok atıf alan çalışma olurken, “evolutionary psychology”, “adaptation” ve “cultural evolution” gibi kavramlar alanın temel odak noktaları olarak öne çıkmıştır. Bulgular, evrimsel psikolojinin hem teorik zenginliğini hem de çağdaş meselelerle (ör. COVID-19) kurduğu etkileşimi ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, tüketici davranışları, sosyal medya kullanımı ve teknolojik adaptasyon gibi alt temaların evrimsel güdülerle ilişkilendirilmesi, disiplinin uygulama potansiyelini vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma ayrıca literatürdeki Batı merkezli yönelimi belirleyerek, kültürlerarası araştırmaların önemine dikkat çekmektedir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, evrimsel psikolojinin tarihsel gelişimini haritalandırmakla kalmayıp, gelecekteki araştırmalara yönelik kapsamlı bir yönlendirme de sunmaktadır.

Abstract

This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature published in the field of evolutionary psychology between 1894 and 2024. Drawing on 9,679 publications indexed in the Scopus database, the analysis examines the distribution of publications by year, country, institution, author, and keyword to identify developmental trends in the discipline. Using VOSviewer software, the study visualizes co-authorship networks, citation patterns, and keyword clusters to map the intellectual landscape of the field. The results indicate that the highest publication output occurred in 2012, with journal articles being the dominant publication type (63.93%). The University of California, Los Angeles emerged as the most active institution, while T.K. Shackelford was identified as the most prolific author. “Bayes Factors” received the highest number of citations, and keywords such as “evolutionary psychology,” “adaptation,” and “cultural evolution” represented the field’s core focus areas. The findings highlight not only the theoretical richness of evolutionary psychology but also its responsiveness to contemporary issues such as COVID-19. Additionally, subtopics such as consumer behavior, social media engagement, and technology adaptation are analyzed through the lens of evolutionary motives, demonstrating the applied potential of the discipline. The study also reveals a Western-centric pattern in the literature and emphasizes the importance of fostering cross-cultural research to enhance global inclusivity. Overall, this bibliometric study provides both a historical account and a strategic roadmap for future inquiry, encouraging the diversification of theoretical perspectives, global collaboration, and the exploration of underrepresented motivational systems within evolutionary psychology.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Koç, F. (2025). EVRİMSEL PSİKOLOJİ ALANINDA 1894-2024 YILLARI ARASINDA YAPILAN ARAŞTIRMALARIN BİBLİYOMETRİK ANALİZİ. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 1540–1556. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.1626079

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (76)

  1. Abdul Kader, M. I., Morrison, E., & Gheorghiu, A. (2025). Better when I'm dancin’: The role of dynamic cues, sex and sexual dimorphism in social perception. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5254502
  2. Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1086/518544
  3. Azam, A., Ahmed, A., Kamran, M. S., Hai, L., Zhang, Z., & Ali, A. (2021). Knowledge structuring for enhancing mechanical energy harvesting (MEH): An in-depth review from 2000 to 2020 using CiteSpace. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111460
  4. Baker, J., & Johnston, K. (2025). An evolutionary psychology perspective on athletic development and performance: Differences between proximate and ultimate explanations. Sports Medicine, 55(1), 1–7.
  5. Barrett, L., Dunbar, R. I., & Lycett, J. (2002). Human evolutionary psychology. Princeton University Press.
  6. Bauman, A. E., Reis, R. S., Sallis, J. F., Wells, J. C., Loos, R. J., & Martin, B. W. (2012). Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not? The Lancet, 380(9838), 258–271. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1
  7. Bozkurt, A., & Gursoy, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence and consumers: The fear of the unknown. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 32(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2023.2165091
  8. Brick, D. J., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2018). Brand compatibility in relationships: When and why we relate to brands like we relate to people. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.995
  9. Brick, D. J., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Chartrand, T. L. (2023). Secret consumption: Understanding why consumers hide their purchases. Journal of Consumer Research, 50(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucad001
  10. Buss, D. M. (2024). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Routledge.
  11. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.
  12. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2011). Evoutionary psychology and feminism. Sex Roles, 64, 768–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9987-3
  13. Campbell, M. C. (2023). Attention in consumer decision-making: A call for further research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(2), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1320
  14. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022 3514.39.5.752
  15. Charney, E. (2012). Behavioral genetics and postgenomics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 331–410. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002226
  16. Cole, S. (2000). Making science: Between nature and society. Harvard University Press.
  17. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419
  18. Cronin, B., & Atkins, H. B. (2000). The scholar’s spoor. In B. Cronin & H. B. Atkins (Eds.), Web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (pp. 1–7). Information Today, Inc.
  19. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  20. DeCarlo, T. E. (2005). The effects of sales message and salesperson behavior on consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
  21. Deng, X., & Jiang, Y. (2023). Virtual influencers and consumer self-perception. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 61, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2023.02.002
  22. Diaz Ruiz, C. A., & Nilsson, T. (2023). The emotional impact of digital misinformation. European Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 1167–1193. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2022-0651
  23. Di Domenico, G., Visser, M., & Sharp, C. (2021). Fake news and psychological vulnerability: The role of cognitive reflection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(7), 496–502. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0344
  24. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.
  25. Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., & Li, N. P. (2011). Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 921–934. https://doi.org/10.1086/656575
  26. Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2015). Sexual selection, the extended phenotype, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.02.002
  27. Fagerstrøm, A., Arntzen, E., & Foxall, G. R. (2017). The prediction of grocery retail shopping using reinforcement sensitivity theory. The Psychological Record, 67(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-017-0243-5
  28. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
  29. Frias, A. R., & O’Connor, K. (2024). Health-related lies and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34(1), 88–104.
  30. Gamble, R. S., Henry, J. D., Decety, J., & Vanman, E. J. (2024). The role of external factors in affect-sharing and their neural bases. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 105540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105540
  31. Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Nature, 227, 669–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/227669a0
  32. Geary, D. C. (2010). Male/female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  33. Givi, J., Galoni, C., & Lee-Yoon, A. (2023). The psychology of gift giving: A review and a call for more diverse perspectives. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1327
  34. Gnocchi, C. D. (2025). The impact of anxiety on cognitive and affective empathy in undergraduate students: An evolutionary psychology perspective. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/4dvqg_v1
  35. Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.03.003
  36. Gvili, Y., Levy, S., & Weitz, B. A. (2017). The effect of freshness perception on purchase intentions in online food retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 36, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.01.005
  37. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814
  38. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
  39. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
  40. Huang, S. C., & Sengupta, J. (2020). Perceiving typicality versus atypicality: The influence of disease avoidance on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(2), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1142
  41. Izaki, A., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Vrticka, P., et al. (2024). A narrative on the neurobiological roots of attachment system functioning. Communications Psychology, 2, 96. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00147-9
  42. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773 795.
  43. Kawai, N., & He, H. (2016). Rapid detection of snakes by Japanese children: Evolutionary origin of fear. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(3), 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12110
  44. Kugler, T., Reif, J., Kaschner, T., & Weber, E. (2018). Gender differences in bargaining: The role of competition and beliefs. European Economic Review, 109, 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.08.003
  45. Li, Y. J., Sun, M., & Karremans, J. (2019). Parental motivation and consumer decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(8), 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802836
  46. Liang, Y., Liu, Y., & Chen, H. (2023). Family motivation and sustainable consumption: Evidence from Chinese consumers. Sustainability, 15(6), 5124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065124
  47. Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and “how to contribute”. The Service Industries Journal, 42(7), 481–513.
  48. Lou, C. (2022). Social media influencers and the parasocial interaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 57, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2022.03.003
  49. Lou, C., Tan, C. T., & Tan, J. (2023). The paradox of virtual influencers: Engagement vs. eeriness. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113463
  50. Ma, L., Li, X., & Zhang, X. (2019). Status consumption and mobile technology adoption in emerging markets: Evidence from India. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.11.001
  51. Maeng, A., & Aggarwal, P. (2018). Facing dominance: Anthropomorphism and consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 954–971. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy043
  52. McBurney, M. K., & Novak, P. L. (2002, September). What is bibliometrics and why should you care? In Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (pp. 108–114). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2002.1049094
  53. Mesoudi, A. (2009). How cultural evolutionary theory can inform social psychology and vice versa. Psychological Review, 116(4), 929–952. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017062
  54. Montecchi, M., Pillai, K. G., & Edvardsson, B. (2024). Marketplace inclusion and marketing research: Where we are and where we need to go. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 52, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00934-1
  55. Mori, M. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33–35. Osareh, F. (1996). Bibliometrics, citations analysis, and co-citation analysis: A review of the literature. Libri, 46(3), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.1996.46.3.149
  56. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
  57. Prendergast, G., Tsang, A. S. L., & Chan, C. N. W. (2014). The effect of gender on consumer response to sales promotions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-04 2013-0305
  58. Rosenbaum, M. S., Ostrom, A. L., & Wu, C. H. J. (2022). Exploring LGBTQ+ consumer experiences: Challenges and opportunities for service providers. Journal of Services Marketing, 36(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-05-2021-0160
  59. Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20(9), 765–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10097
  60. Schmitt, B. (2020). From atoms to bits and back: A research agenda for the consumer experience in the age of AI. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa002
  61. Sharma, A., & Kumar, V. (2023). Secondhand stigma: How used products influence perceptions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1323
  62. Sharifian, N., Zahodne, L. B., & Tun, P. A. (2021). Age differences in emotional reactions to daily stressors on social media. Psychology and Aging, 36(5), 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000609
  63. Stein, A., Fernandes, T., & Mahr, D. (2024). Parasocial relationships with virtual influencers: Drivers and outcomes. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 65, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2024.01.003
  64. Thomas, T., & Jewell, R. D. (2019). Secret self-gifting: Understanding the motives and outcomes. Psychology & Marketing, 36(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21170
  65. Thomas, T., Vinuales, G., & Ruiz, C. A. D. (2024). Understanding influencer motivations and status perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 61(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243723121234
  66. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129
  67. Van Anders, S. M., & Hampson, E. (2005). Testing the prenatal androgen hypothesis: Measuring digit ratios, sexual orientation, and spatial abilities in adults. Hormones and Behavior, 47(1), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.09.003
  68. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  69. van Raan, A. F. J. (1996). Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities. Scientometrics, 36(3), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02183032
  70. Vinuales, G., & Thomas, T. (2021). Observational learning on social media and consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 135, 612–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.026
  71. Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336
  72. Winegard, B. M., & Deaner, R. O. (2014). Misrepresentations of evolutionary psychology in sex and gender textbooks. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 474–508. http://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200
  73. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.
  74. Zhan, L., Tu, Z., & Liang, Y. (2023). Consumer resistance to artificial intelligence: A review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, 122366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122366
  75. Zhang, S., Che, S., Nan, D., & Kim, J. H. (2022). MOOCs as a research agenda: Changes over time. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 23(4), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v23i4.6361
  76. Zhao, X., Nan, D., Chen, C., Zhang, S., Che, S., & Kim, J. H. (2023). Bibliometric study for environmental, social, and governance research using CiteSpace. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 2534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1087493