We have argued that the evolutionary perspective to social psychology is not untestable, not reductionist, not a theory about rigid genetic determinism, not a justification for the status quo, and not incompatible with sociocultural or cognitive analyses. What it is, instead, is a set of ideas that have proved quite useful in generating novel hypotheses, and parsimoniously connecting findings from very different domains ranging from mate choice and family relationships to aggression and intergroup relations. Adopting an evolutionary perspective can help us appreciate not only the common threads that bind the people in our culture to those in other cultures, but also, beyond that, to the other species with which we share the earth. Taking this broad perspective, however, also makes us aware of the vast reaches of our own ignorance. As yet, we know very little about how evolved psychological mechanisnis inside individuals develop, or how they influence, and are influenced by, the complex cultures that humans construct. Bringing light to these questions will require a fuller integration of all the different theoretical perspectives on human social behavior.
Sex differences in jealousy are among the most thoroughly investigated effects in the domain of evolutionary psychology (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Edlund, Sagarin, & Kinner, in press). According to the theory of evolved sex differences in jealousy as offered by Buss et al., ancestral women's challenge of ensuring paternal investment exerted selective pressures that increased women's jealousy in response to emotional infidelity, whereas ancestral men's challenge of paternal uncertainty exerted selective pressures that increased men's jealousy in response to sexual infidelity (although see Edlund et al., 2019 for an alternative evolutionary account for the pattern of jealousy observed in males). Observing that women experience greater jealousy in response to emotional infidelity (relative to men) and that men experience greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity (relative to women) is known as the sex differences in jealousy effect.
evolutionary psychology buss 5th pdf download
Download Zip: https://jinyurl.com/2vJt13
Procedure. Participants were presented with a description of evolutionary psychology, emphasizing explanations for sex differences in mate preferences. In particular, participants were asked to read the following description:
Evolutionary psychology is a relatively new field in psychology that attempts to bring together modern evolutionary theory and psychology. In so doing, it seeks to explain present-day human behavior in terms of adaptations that were successful in evolutionary history. In other words, the past is seen as explaining present day psychological mechanisms, such as sex differences in mate preferences (i.e., what a man prefers in a mate versus what a woman prefers). For example, women are predicted to value in a mate the ability and willingness to provide social, psychological, and material resources. Men, in turn, are predicted to value those characteristics in women that provide powerful cues to reproductive value (i.e., youth and health), such as physical appearance and attractiveness.
While this study supported the predicted association between attractiveness and endorsement of evolutionary psychology, its correlational nature leaves open the possibility of confounds (although measurement eliminated certain demographic variables as likely causal candidates). Accordingly, in Study 2a, we sought to manipulate physical attractiveness experimentally.
It is important to reiterate a key difference between the methods of Study 1 and Study 2. In Study 1, outside raters actually evaluated the physical attractiveness of each participant. In Study 2, by contrast, participants themselves were asked to indicate how a typical observer would rate their attractiveness. Nevertheless, the results of Study 1 and Study 2a both showed that higher ratings of attractiveness were associated with greater endorsement of particular aspects of evolutionary psychology (though, interestingly, the effect was stronger in Study 1 than in Study 2a).
Of course, based on reported demographic data, participants in our studies were not representative of the U.S. population as a whole, being younger, more liberal, and from a higher family income bracket than the typical U.S. citizen. They were, as well, only asked to respond to the account of evolutionary psychology that we provided to them. In order to ensure a concise stimulus paragraph, such an account was somewhat simplified, describing differences between female and male mating preferences that, while continuing to be supported by current research [26], could more properly be characterized in relative rather than absolute terms, with significant overlap between the sexes in terms of mating strategies [27].
Moreover, although our hypotheses were derived from theories of motivated inference, it is important to note that the present studies were concerned solely with documenting the existence of the relevant bias. Additional research could help explicate the underlying reasons for the favoring by physically attractive individuals of the specific predictions of evolutionary psychology that were explored in these studies. Indeed, although a motivated inference account would suggest that physically attractive individuals would favor a theory that privileges their ingroup [28], and thus they would be particularly attracted to aspects of the provided evolutionary account that highlighted the benefits of physical beauty for themselves and/or their anticipated mate, it is at least possible that such individuals were particularly drawn to other aspects of the theory, such as those privileging resource accumulation. Again, further research could help untangle these possibilities.
Although these studies included limitations and revealed modest effect sizes, the complementary approach of correlational and experimental designs bolsters the validity of the findings, which arguably can be considered substantial in the context of other plausible predictor variables [29]. Indeed, when individuals were presented with a definition of evolutionary psychology, including its application to mate preferences, observer-rated physical attractiveness best predicted support of the theory, in terms of the absolute value of the relevant correlation coefficient, r(84) = .31, 95% CI = [.11,.50], as compared to the next three highest contenders. These included self-esteem, r(125) = .22, 95% CI = [.04,.38] and political orientation (with, again, higher numbers = more conservative), r(125) = .21, 95% CI = [.04,.38], both assessed in the Study 2a control condition; and gender (coded as 1 = female, 2 = male), r(84) = .19 [-.03,.39], as assessed in Study 1, all of three which, interestingly, appeared to be much more aligned in terms of their absolute effect sizes.
Evolutionary psychology is more than one subject. It is a meta-theory, encompassing and building on success in cognitive science, psychology, anthropology, genetics, and evolutionary biology to understand human psychology (Balish, Eys, & Schulte-Hostedde, 2013).
Before you continue, we thought you might like to download these three Positive Psychology Exercises for free. These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.
Undoubtedly, evolutionary psychology is fascinating, not least because of its willingness to combine ideas and research from multiple cutting-edge fields including cognitive science, anthropology, information theory, and genetics.
Yet, we must remember that although evolutionary psychology explains much of our thinking, it does not, in any way, condone behavior that ignores the needs or wishes of others. We have evolved a highly complex brain that not only provides automatic and instinctual reactions but also the capacity for complex reasoning and moral thinking.
From the perspective of our own psychology and our work with clients, evolutionary psychology can benefit how we approach unwanted behavior. Viewing our minds in light of our ancient past may explain why we behave as we do and how we can change.
In spite of having various conceptions, with slightly different definitions depending on the author, evolutionary psychology, which is essentially the application of evolutionary principles to help inform our understanding of human behavior (see Geher 2006), has met extraordinary success in recent years. Major journals in the behavioral sciences, such as Brain and Behavioral Sciences (see Wilson 2007), and several other major journals (Webster 2007) have embraced evolutionarily informed scholarship in recent years. Further, evolutionary principles have been applied in ways that have shed light on all aspects of psychology, including such basic processes as auditory reception as well as such advanced and complex processes as infanticide and differential parental solicitude (see Barker 2006).
Recently, an additional success of evolutionary psychology has been documented. Compared with other perspective-based areas of the behavioral sciences, it appears that evolutionary psychology is more interdisciplinary than any other. This point is manifest by the facts that (a) first authors of articles in evolutionary psychology journals are more likely to reflect fields outside psychology compared with journals in other perspective-based areas of psychology and (b) a relatively high number of disciplines outside psychology is cited in journals related to evolutionary psychology compared with journals in other perspective-based areas of psychology (Garcia et al. 2011). In a world where scholarship across disciplines is becoming the ideal, this pattern marks a major new success story regarding evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology is a major force in the behavioral sciences with a somewhat unclear, but certainly positive future in academia (Garcia et al. 2011). Further, evolutionary psychology seems to be ahead of the curve when it comes to an interdisciplinary approach to scholarship. 2ff7e9595c
Comments