Summary
Comprehensive Summary Papers Rational Thinking and Decision-Making
- Course
- Institution
Summary of 55 pages for the course Rational Thinking and Decision-Making at UVT
[Show more]
Seller
Followolivierhilberts
Content preview
Summary of Li et al. (2018) - The Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis: Implications forPsychological Science
Li, van Vugt, and Colarelli (2018) explore the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis, which posits
that the human psychological mechanisms evolved to solve ancestral survival and
reproductive challenges may be maladapted to modern environments. This concept
underscores the notion that many behaviors and psychological outcomes that were once
adaptive have become maladaptive due to the significant changes in contemporary
societies. The paper elaborates on the principles of mismatch theory and highlights its
relevance in various domains of psychology, health, and social policy.
Evolutionary Mismatch: A Theoretical Overview
The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis is grounded in the premise that human psychological
mechanisms, which evolved primarily during the hunter-gatherer phase of human history, are
adapted to the specific conditions of that era. These mechanisms include physiological,
cognitive, and behavioral adaptations that were designed to maximize survival and
reproductive success. However, the environments in which modern humans live have
diverged drastically from these ancestral settings. As a result, these mechanisms are often
triggered by inputs that no longer correlate with fitness-enhancing outcomes, leading to
maladaptive behaviors and health issues.
Li et al. present the concept of adaptive lag, a phenomenon where the evolution of
psychological mechanisms is slower than the rate of environmental change. As such, there
is a misalignment between evolved adaptations and current environments. They emphasize
that this mismatch can occur in different forms, including forced mismatches, where new
environments are imposed on individuals, and hijacked mismatches, where modern stimuli
exploit and exaggerate ancestral mechanisms (e.g., supernormal stimuli like processed
foods).
Domains Affected by Evolutionary Mismatch
The paper identifies several domains where evolutionary mismatch has significant
implications:
1. Physical and Mental Health:
○ Modern diets, rich in processed foods and sugars, present a clear example of
evolutionary mismatch. In ancestral environments, sweet foods like fruits
, provided essential nutrients and energy. However, modern processed foods
contain unnaturally high levels of sugar, leading to obesity, diabetes, and
other health problems.
○ Another example is the prevalence of myopia (nearsightedness) in modern
societies. The authors propose that the lack of natural, distant stimuli (e.g.,
focusing on screens and books) impedes proper eye development, which
evolved in environments where visual attention was directed at moving and
distant objects.
○ Mental health issues like postpartum depression are also discussed. Li et
al. suggest that this may be due to the lack of ancestral social support
systems, such as kin networks, which were crucial for maternal and infant
survival. In contemporary societies, where such support systems are often
lacking, the mechanisms designed to regulate maternal behaviors become
maladaptive, leading to increased rates of depression.
2. Mating and Relationship Dynamics:
○ The paper discusses how modern media and technology exacerbate
evolutionary mismatches in mating psychology. For example, exposure to
images of highly attractive individuals through social media reduces
self-esteem and relationship satisfaction, as individuals are constantly
comparing themselves to these unrealistic standards. In ancestral times,
people only encountered a limited number of potential mates, so the
mechanisms governing mate selection and competition were suited to those
conditions.
○ The use of hormonal contraceptives also disrupts natural mating
mechanisms. These contraceptives alter hormone levels, affecting
preferences and behavior patterns that evolved to optimize reproductive
success. Research cited by the authors shows that hormonal changes
associated with contraceptive use can increase jealousy and alter mate
preferences in ways that are misaligned with evolved mating strategies.
3. Work and Organizational Behavior:
○ Li et al. discuss the mismatch between modern organizational structures and
ancestral work patterns. In hunter-gatherer societies, labor was typically
physical and involved direct interaction with natural environments. Modern
workspaces, in contrast, are often sedentary and lack exposure to nature.
This shift impacts employee well-being, as humans are evolutionarily
predisposed to function better in environments with natural elements.
, ○ Leadership selection in organizations is another area of mismatch.
Historically, leaders were chosen based on physical traits that indicated
strength and competence, such as height and physical presence. In modern
organizations, however, these traits are not necessarily indicative of effective
leadership. Yet, due to the evolutionary predisposition to value such
characteristics, people continue to favor leaders who exhibit these physical
attributes, even when they are irrelevant to job performance.
Mechanisms of Mismatch and Their Consequences
Li et al. classify mismatch along several dimensions: source, type, cause, and
consequences.
● Sources of mismatch include natural changes (e.g., shifts in population density) and
human-induced changes (e.g., technological advancements).
● Types of mismatch include forced (environments imposed on individuals) and
hijacked (modern stimuli exploiting ancestral mechanisms).
● Mismatch causes involve changes in input intensity (e.g., increased exposure to
attractive individuals online) or the absence of inputs that were once critical (e.g.,
lack of supportive kin networks).
● Consequences of mismatch range from physical health issues like obesity and
myopia to psychological and social issues such as decreased relationship
satisfaction and increased stress.
Policy and Intervention Implications
The authors argue that understanding the evolutionary mismatch framework has important
implications for public policy and intervention strategies. Ignoring the evolutionary origins of
psychological mechanisms can lead to ineffective or even harmful interventions. For
instance, they highlight how overly sanitary environments, while beneficial in reducing
disease transmission, may hinder the development of the immune system in children,
leading to increased allergies and autoimmune disorders.
To address ecological issues like conservation, Li et al. propose aligning interventions with
evolved tendencies rather than opposing them. For example, leveraging status concerns and
social imitation, which are deeply ingrained in human psychology, could encourage
sustainable behaviors more effectively than abstract appeals to environmental responsibility.
Conclusion
, Li et al. conclude that the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis provides a powerful framework
for understanding many contemporary psychological and behavioral issues. By recognizing
the gap between evolved mechanisms and modern environments, researchers and
policymakers can develop more effective strategies to mitigate the negative impacts of
mismatch. This understanding is not only essential for advancing psychological science but
also for crafting policies that align with human nature to promote well-being in modern
societies.
The comprehensive approach of the paper underscores the need to bridge the gap between
evolutionary predispositions and contemporary living conditions to improve health, social
relationships, and organizational effectiveness.
Summary of Baron (2014) - Heuristics and Biases in Judgment and Decision Making
Jonathan Baron (2014) provides a comprehensive overview of the field of Judgment and
Decision Making (JDM), focusing on the interplay between normative, descriptive, and
prescriptive models. His chapter discusses the foundational theories and research that
underpin the study of human judgment and decision-making, particularly in the context of
heuristics and biases.
Theoretical Perspectives: Normative, Descriptive, and Prescriptive
Baron outlines the three primary perspectives in JDM:
1. Normative Models: These models define how decisions should be made, offering an
ideal standard based on logical and mathematical principles. Examples include
expected utility theory and Bayesian probability theory, which serve as
benchmarks for evaluating actual decision-making processes. These models provide
a framework for understanding the optimal way to make judgments about uncertain
events.
2. Descriptive Models: Descriptive models explain how people actually make
decisions, revealing systematic deviations from normative models. Research has
demonstrated that people often use heuristics, which are cognitive shortcuts,
leading to biases in judgment. For instance, the availability heuristic causes people
to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily recalled, while the
representativeness heuristic involves judging probabilities based on similarity
rather than statistical reasoning.
3. Prescriptive Models: These models aim to improve decision-making by designing
interventions that bridge the gap between normative standards and descriptive
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller olivierhilberts. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.24. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
83637 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now