Samenvatting
Summary Evolutionary Psychology A How-To Guide
Evolutionary Psychology A How-To Guide
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 21 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 21 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
American Psychologist © 2017 American Psychological Association2017, Vol. 72, No. 4, 353–373 0003-066X/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040409
Evolutionary Psychology: A How-To Guide
David M. G. Lewis Laith Al-Shawaf
The University of Texas at Austin and Bilkent University Bilkent University and Institute for Advanced Study, Berlin,
Germany
Daniel Conroy-Beam, Kelly Asao, and David M. Buss
The University of Texas at Austin
Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences are increasingly using evolutionary insights
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
to test novel hypotheses about human psychology. Because evolutionary perspectives are
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
relatively new to psychology and most researchers do not receive formal training in this
endeavor, there remains ambiguity about “best practices” for implementing evolutionary
principles. This article provides researchers with a practical guide for using evolutionary
perspectives in their research programs and for avoiding common pitfalls in doing so. We
outline essential elements of an evolutionarily informed research program at 3 central phases:
(a) generating testable hypotheses, (b) testing empirical predictions, and (c) interpreting
results. We elaborate key conceptual tools, including task analysis, psychological mecha-
nisms, design features, universality, and cost-benefit analysis. Researchers can use these tools
to generate hypotheses about universal psychological mechanisms, social and cultural inputs
that amplify or attenuate the activation of these mechanisms, and cross-culturally variable
behavior that these mechanisms can produce. We hope that this guide inspires theoretically
and methodologically rigorous research that more cogently integrates knowledge from the
psychological and life sciences.
Keywords: evolutionary psychology, social psychology, cross-cultural psychology,
misconceptions, universality
Theories in evolutionary psychology are commonly viewed In recent years, behavioral scientists from diverse back-
with greater skepticism than more traditional psychological grounds have shown increased interest in evolutionary
theories. These considerations, coupled with the fact that it is perspectives. This rise in evolutionary thinking reflects a
essential to be intellectually persuasive to succeed in the
growing interest across the psychological and behavioral
scientific environment, might tempt the pragmatic scientist to
play it safe—to avoid dabbling in multilevel theories that sciences in understanding the influence of selection and
specify models of historical origins. Giving in to this tempta- other evolutionary forces on human psychology. This is
tion, however, would surely have unhealthy consequences for evidenced by greater emphasis on evolutionary theories in
the advancement of psychological science. leading handbooks of personality psychology (Buss, 2009;
—Conway and Schaller (2002, p. 160) Buss & Penke, 2015) and social psychology (Buss & Ken-
rick, 1998; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010), special
issues dedicated to an evolutionary approach to the psycho-
David M. G. Lewis, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas logical sciences (e.g., Gangestad & Tybur, 2016), edited
at Austin and Department of Psychology and Neuroscience Interdisciplin-
volumes and social psychology textbooks integrating evo-
ary Program, Bilkent University; Laith Al-Shawaf, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Bilkent University and College of Life Sciences, Institute for Ad- lutionary principles (Schaller, Simpson, & Kenrick, 2006;
vanced Study, Berlin, Germany; Daniel Conroy-Beam, Kelly Asao, and Simpson & Kenrick, 1997), and the publication of more
David M. Buss, Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at evolutionarily oriented introductory psychology textbooks
Austin.
(e.g., Gray, 2010).
The authors express their gratitude to Bill von Hippel for his generous
and insightful feedback on a previous version of this article. The authors Despite mounting scientific interest, ambiguity persists
also wish to thank Cari D. Goetz, Judith A. Easton, and Jaime M. Cloud for about the application of evolutionary psychological princi-
sharing their thoughts on this guide during its conception. ples. There are several sources of conceptual confusion that
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David
may be particularly important. First, ironically, there is
M. G. Lewis, who is now at the School of Psychology and Exercise
Science, Murdoch University, Social Science Building, 90 South Street, evidence that humans possess evolved cognitive mecha-
Murdoch WA 6150, Australia. E-mail: davidlewis@utexas.edu nisms that impede an accurate understanding of the logic of
353
, 354 LEWIS, AL-SHAWAF, CONROY-BEAM, ASAO, AND BUSS
The Hierarchical Theoretical Structure of
Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary theory provides a framework for under-
standing the distal causal processes responsible for creating
functionally organized organic mechanisms, such as those
of the human brain and mind. However, it is not a psycho-
logical theory itself. Rather, it can be used to produce
“middle-level theories” (Buss, 1995) from which specific
hypotheses can be generated. These hypotheses, in turn, can
be used to generate specific testable empirical predictions
about the mind’s information-processing mechanisms and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the behavioral outputs that they produce.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
From Evolutionary Theory to
Middle-Level Theories
The central principle of natural selection is that, over
time, genes that more successfully promote their own rep-
David M. G. lication increase in frequency relative to competing genetic
Lewis variants. When this core principle is applied to specific
domains of life, such as mating, parenting, or other kin
evolutionary theory (Legare, Lane, & Evans, 2013; Shtul- relationships, it yields middle-level theories.
man & Schulz, 2008). Second, technical principles of evo- For example, the middle-level theory of kin selection
lutionary theory appear deceptively simple at first glance, (Hamilton, 1964) is an extension of the core principle of
but in fact require mastery of a formidable body of key selection to the context of altruism among kin. The key
concepts. The combination of these two obstacles suggests insight of kin selection theory is that a gene can increase its
that more rigorous training in evolutionary theory is neces- own replicative success through direct reproduction, but
sary to properly conduct research consistent with evolution- also by promoting the reproduction of other bodies likely to
ary principles. However, most psychologists receive little or carry copies of itself. Because genetic relatives carry copies
no such training. To our knowledge, no psychology gradu- of one’s genes, the preconditions necessary for the evolution
ate program in the United States requires even a single of altruism can be met if this altruism is directed toward
course in evolutionary biology. Collectively, these issues one’s genetic relatives. Hamilton (1964) generated the
point toward the utility of an accessible, systematic guide middle-level theory of kin selection by applying the central
that researchers can use to generate and test evolutionary evolutionary principle of selection to the domain of altruism
psychological hypotheses. and kin relationships.
The Stages of Research From Middle-Level Theories to
Specific Hypotheses
As with all psychological research, evolutionarily in-
formed research involves (a) generating hypotheses, (b) Researchers can use middle-level theories such as kin
empirically testing predictions based on those hypotheses, selection to generate multiple hypotheses. Kin selection
and (c) interpreting study results. However, research that theory specifies that altruistic behavior can be favored by
seeks to be consistent with evolutionary principles must also selection if the benefit of that behavior to the target (B),
incorporate several additional features at each stage of re- weighted by the genetic relatedness between altruist and
search. We organize this article around these distinct phases target (r), is greater than the cost of the behavior to the
of research, outlining the elements that well-designed evo- altruist (C; Hamilton, 1964). Formally, this is given as
lutionary research must share with all well-designed psy- rB ⬎ C.
chological research, as well as detailing key features unique This formula illustrates that the degree of genetic relat-
to an evolutionary approach. edness between two individuals is an important determinant
First, however, we discuss the hierarchical structure of of whether a given situation meets the rB ⬎ C criterion.
evolutionary psychology, because this structure entails sev- Identifying kin of differing degrees of genetic relatedness
eral key concepts that are a necessary foundation for prop- would thus have been an important adaptive problem. This
erly applying evolutionary principles at the distinct phases reasoning leads to the kin recognition hypothesis: that se-
of research. lection favored the evolution of psychological mechanisms
, EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: A HOW-TO GUIDE 355
leagues advanced the following testable predictions: (a)
older siblings will exhibit greater altruism toward younger
siblings if they have observed them nursing from their own
mother, (b) older siblings who have not observed such
nursing will exhibit greater altruism toward younger sib-
lings with whom they have cohabited longer, and (c)
younger siblings will exhibit greater altruism toward sib-
lings with whom they have cohabited longer.
These predictions were generated based on specific hy-
potheses, which in turn were inspired by the middle-level
theory of kin selection, which was itself generated on the
basis of evolutionary theory. A key implication of the hier-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
archical theoretical structure of evolutionary psychology is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
that the application of a simple insight at a broad level—
such as that of a middle-level theory like kin selection— can
yield rich and diverse downstream hypotheses and a priori
predictions readily testable in empirical research. Middle-
level evolutionary theories guide the generation of hypoth-
eses unlikely to be produced in their absence, and have great
heuristic value for discovering novel psychological phe-
Laith Al-Shawaf
nomena (Table 1; see also Buss, 2015).
designed to estimate the degree of relatedness between self Hypothesis Generation
and target (e.g., DeBruine, 2002; Lieberman, Tooby, &
Like all scientific research, evolutionary psychological
Cosmides, 2003, 2007).
research may be theory-driven or observation-driven. A
Researchers can then use this broad hypothesis, which is
theory-driven “top-down” approach often entails identifying
based on the middle-level theory of kin selection, to gener-
ancestral conditions that would have impacted individuals’
ate more specific hypotheses. For example, the broad kin
survival or reproduction, and then describing psychological
recognition hypothesis has led to numerous specific hypoth-
mechanisms capable, in principle, of solving the problems
eses about the mechanisms by which humans might have
posed by those conditions. This contrasts with a “bottom-
evolved to detect kin. In the case of detecting siblings,
up” approach, in which a researcher begins by observing a
researchers have proposed several classes of cues recur-
phenomenon, and then generates testable hypotheses about
rently linked to genetic siblingship in ancestral conditions.
the psychological mechanisms that could be responsible for
These include (a) environmental cues such as physical prox-
producing the observed phenomenon (Buss, 1995).
imity (e.g., cohabitation), (b) social cues such as observing
a neonate nursing from one’s own mother (i.e., maternal
perinatal association [MPA]), (c) linguistic cues such as Theory-Driven, Top-Down Approach
those embedded in kin classification systems, and (d) phe-
notypic cues such as physical resemblance. Each of these A top-down approach involves two steps. First, a re-
four proposed classes of cues represents a distinct hypoth- searcher identifies a specific survival- or reproduction-
esis about evolved sibling recognition mechanisms. related problem present in ancestral human environments
(see the “Knowledge about ancestral environments” sec-
tion). Second, the researcher articulates the specific psycho-
From Hypotheses to Predictions
logical equipment that could, in principle, have helped solve
Researchers can then use hypotheses to generate testable that adaptive problem. This includes sensory, perceptual,
empirical predictions. For example, Lieberman et al. (2003, and physiological systems that detect cues to the problem
2007) hypothesized that humans’ sibling detection mecha- (inputs); computational machinery that processes these cues
nisms are designed to (a) produce elevated estimates of (algorithms); and behaviors, emotions, and cognitions mo-
relatedness when one observes a newborn nursing from bilized by these computations in order to solve the relevant
one’s own mother, and (b) in the absence of the MPA cue, problem (outputs).
increase estimates of relatedness as a function of cohabita- Step 1: Identify an adaptive problem. Adaptive prob-
tion. Lieberman et al. hypothesized that these elevated es- lems refer to conditions that would have had a recurrent
timates of relatedness, in turn, lead to greater altruistic impact on ancestral humans’ survival or reproduction
motivation. Based on these hypotheses, Lieberman and col- (Tooby & Cosmides, 1988). Adaptive problems for humans
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper divedmark. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52355 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen