The TV series Dallas remains one of the most popular shows to ever have been broadcast on American TV. It was a serialized prime-time soap opera with weekly 45 minute episodes that ran from 1978 until 1991. This long-running show is one of the few to have been entirely released in DVD format; all 14 seasons are available as of 2011, and reruns are still aired internationally. Hundreds of thousands of visitors still tour the Southfork Ranch used for filming, outside Dallas, Texas. I will argue that the reason for this show's success is because it routinely depicted themes that align with our evolved psychology. Using arguments that have been created to discuss literary Darwinism and gossip, I propose that this show depicted topics that have adaptive value; Dallas both exploits our evolved interests but also may act as a learning device for solving adaptive problems. Over the course of human evolution, it may have increased individual fitness to know who is wealthy or owns plentiful resources, has power and status, cheats on or poaches mates, engages in sibling rivalry, enhances their attractiveness, and so on. Dallas depicts these topics, and others, and thus, it is sensible that it would have been so successful among international audiences, and across decades.
AgrawalA. (2001). Kin recognition and the evolution of altruism. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 268, 1099–1104. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1611
2.
AngI. (1985). Watching Dallas: Soap opera and the melodramatic imagination. Translated by Della Couling. New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BoydB., CarrollJ., & GottschallJ. (2010). Evolution, literature, and film: A reader. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
4.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992
5.
BussD. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 23–29.
6.
BussD. M., LarsenR. J., WestenD., & SemmelrothJ. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
7.
CarrollJ. (1995). Evolution and literary theory. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
8.
CollinsS. A. (2000). Men's voices and women's choices. Animal Behaviour, 60, 773–780. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1523
9.
CoxA., & FisherM. (2009). The Texas billionaire's pregnant bride: An evolutionary interpretation of romance fiction titles. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3, 386–401.
10.
CurranB. A. (2005). Dallas: The complete story of the world's favorite prime-time soap. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House.
11.
DawkinsR. (1976). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
De BackerC. J. S. (2005). Like Belgian chocolate for the universal mind: Interpersonal and media gossip in an evolutionary perspective. (Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, Belgium).
13.
De BackerC. J. S., & GurvenM. (2006). Whispering down the lane: The economics of vicarious information transfer. Adaptive Behavior, 14, 249–264. doi:10.1177/105971230601400303
14.
DunkleyC. (1985). Television today and tomorrow: Wall-to-wall Dallas?New York, NY: Penguin.
15.
FisherM., & CoxA. (2010). Man change thyself: Hero versus heroine development in Harlequin romance novels. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4, 305–316.
16.
FisherM., & CoxA. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships, 18, 20–38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x
17.
FisherM., & MeredithT. (in press a). The success behind the candy-coloured covers: An evolutionary perspective on popular literature for women. The Evolutionary Review.
18.
FisherM., & MeredithT. (in press b). An evolutionary-guided tour of Western paintings 1400–1892. The Evolutionary Review.
19.
FisherM., RekkasP., VoracekM., & CoxA. (2008). Sex differences in feelings of guilt arising from infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 436–446.
20.
GalefB. G. (1976). Social transmission of acquired behavior: A discussion of tradition and social learning in vertebrates. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 2, 77–100.
21.
GilesD. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psychology, 4, 279–305. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04
22.
GitlinT. (2002). Media unlimited: How the torrent of images and sounds overwhelms our lives. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
23.
HamiltonW. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–16. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4
24.
HarrisC. R. (2003). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 319–329. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.00112
25.
HenrichJ., & Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4
KrugerD., & FisherM. (2005). Males identify and respond adaptively to the mating strategies of other men. Sexualities, Evolution and Gender, 7, 233–244. doi:10.1080/14616660500235898
28.
KrugerD., FisherM., & JoblingI. (2003). Proper and dark heroes as dads and cads: Alternative mating strategies in British Romantic literature. Human Nature, 14, 305–317. doi:10.1007/s12110-003-1008-y
29.
LiebesT. (1988). Cultural differences in the retelling of television fiction. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5, 277–292. doi:10.1080/15295038809366717
30.
MarloweF. (2010). The Hazda: Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Irving, CA: University of California Press.
31.
MockD. W., & ParkerG. A. (1998). The evolution of sibling rivalry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
NettleD. (2010). Dying young and living fast: Variation in life history across English neighborhoods. Behavioral Ecology, 21, 387–395. doi:10.1093/beheco/arp202
33.
PinkerS. (1995). The language instinct. New York, NY: Penguin.
34.
SalmonC. A., & ShackelfordT. K.. (2007). Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
SchmittD. P., ShackelfordT. K., DuntleyJ., TookeW., & BussD. M. (2001). The desire for sexual variety as a key to understanding basic human mating strategies. Personal Relationships, 8, 425–455. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00049.x
36.
StroutS., FisherM., KrugerD., & SteeleworthyL. (2010). Pride and prejudice or children and cheating?: Jane Austen's representations of female mating strategies. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 4, 317–331.
37.
ToobyJ., & CosmidesL. (2001). Does beauty build adapted minds? Towards an evolutionary theory of aesthetics, fiction and the arts. SubStance, 30, 6–27.
