Lecture 9: evolutionary social psychology Flashcards
define evolution
change in inherited characteristics within a population over successive generations
describe darwinian evolution (via natural selecion). 3 premises
- individuals of a species show variation in traits
- some of this variation is heritable
- some traits provide benefits in terms of survival and reproductive success (adaption
whats the consequence of natural selection?
individuals with greater chances of survival and reproductive success (due to positive adaptations) will leave more offspring, and those offspring will inherit their parent’s traits
= certain adaptive traits are selected for over the course of generations
= these adaptive traits increase in frequency in future generations = becoming widespread in the species
AAAaaaAAAaaAAA
what is A?
= evolution via natural selection
an adaptation: a trait that has been selected for due to its impact on fitness
define evolutionary psychology (EP)
what assumptions does it make? (1 main, 3 sub)
application of evolutionary theorising to understand human psychology and behaviour
mind is composed of collection of evolved psychological mechanisms
- adaptations
- domain specific
- designed to solve various specific recurrent problems faced by evolutionary ancestors
e. g. disease avoidance, kin care
what is the problem of altruism in light of EP?
if evolution tailors organisms to behave in ways that facilitate their own reproductive success, doesn’t this mean that organisms will be selfish?
what is taking a ‘gene’s-eye view’?
Q= if you were a gene what would facilitate your reproduction?
- selfish genes vs selfish individuals
- > its about having selfish genes, not being a selfish individual (its evolutionary)
= if prosocial behaviour happens to increase the likelihood of one’s genetic material being passed = such behaviour will be selected for
how is it possible that pro social behaviour might increase the chances that ones genetic material is passed onto future generations?
inclusive fitness
define inclusive fitness
- direct (classical)
- indirect
-> why aren’t all kin equal?
Hamilton
-> capacity for genetic information to spread in the population
- genes can get their host organisms to reproduce = individual has offspring
- via increasing the classical fitness of others who also share ones genes i.e. kin, relatives = helping kin survive (we share genes with kin = increases them getting spread in the population)
- > we share different amount of genetic information with our kin = more likely to help those more closely related to us
What did belding’s ground squirrels show?
how is this alturistic?
Sherman
-> alarm calls in response to predators
-> more likely to occur in the presence of sisters, aunts and nieces
(helping scaled as a function of genetic relatedness)
drawing attention to themselves (putting themselves in danger) to benefit others
explain a human study consistent with the inclusive fitness account of evolution
LA women (Mcguire)
help more likely to be given and received among those who the participants was genetically related more strongly to (r=0.5)
How do parents treat children?
Daly and Wilson study
genetic relatedness constrains negative behaviours
single largest predictor of child abuse/homicide = presence of a step-parent in the home
-> 40-100 x higher if theres a step parent compared to both genetic parents
how do mum vs dad treat children?
although offspring are theoretically r=0.5 (half mum, half dad)
- paternity uncertainty
> mothers more certain = nicer
Explain Grandparental certainty
- grandparent attitudes
- grandchild attitudes
Lahman
- Maternal grandmother = doubly certain
paternal grandfather = doubly uncertain
daughter -> her mother’s father was investing MORE compared to father’s mum
= in theory each equally uncertain
= father’s mother might have a more certain investment outlet (e.g. a daughter with a child)
- more warmth from maternal grandmothers relative to father’s father
what are the challenged to evolutionary psychology? (4)
are they fair?
- pan-adaptationism = EP think everything is an adaptation
not true
- everything determined by gene (genetic determinism, no nurture)
no, they are actually interactionists genes + environment
- implies things about adaptations are always morally good
not true, naturalistic fallacy
what’s EPs value? (2)
- metatheory = organising framework for human behaviour
- function: not just how, but why
= novel hypotheses
define morality
whats the content of morality (overview)
code of conduct/set of rules pertaining to “right” or “wrong” held by a group or individual
psychological processes that drive moral judgement
describe the moral/conventional distinction task (Turiel)
the different violations
(what were they asked?)
study on children
- > make judgements about rule violations
1. hits
2. pushes off swing
3. boy wearing a dress to school
4. talks out of turn
-> wrong? punishable?
what if teacher said its okay? (authority dependent)
it’s scope - temporally and geographically
whats the signature moral response? (SMR)
found by?
in what context was the SMR given by children in an experiement?
- serious, wrong, bad
- punishable
- authority independent
- general in scope
Turiel
harm, welfare, justice and rights
what did haid, kolle and dias do to challenge morality?
3 examples he gave participants
what did they find?
what did they conclude?
gave people rule violations that didn’t involve harm or injustice
e.g. clean toilet with american flag, eat family dog after being killed in car accident, sex with dead chicken
= wrong regardless of what an authority figure said at any time/place
-> authority independent, general in scope
morality can be more than harm/justice
whats the three domain account of morality (shweder)
what kind of account is it?
what kind of account isn’t it?
- autonomy = harm, violation of rights (what turiel concluded)
- community (hierarchy) = fail to carry out duty
- divinity (purity)= disrespect sacredness - sin, protection of soul/world
a descriptive account = observes what people make judgements on/how they do it
NOT normative - whether they should or shouldn’t
what’s moral foundations theory (Haidt & Graham)
5 domains
-> what does each domain compare to in shweder’s account (autonomy, community or divinity)
- harm/care = autonomy
- fairness/reciprocity = autonomy
- authority/respect = community
- in-group/loyalty = community
- purity/ sanctity = divinity
how relevant to the 5 domains of moral judgements are liberals (democrats) to conservatives (republicans)?
liberal = harm and fairness to be more relevant
conservatives = in-group authority and purity to be more relevant
what accounts for judgments of right and wrong? (whats in the moral black box (the mind)?)
(stimulus -> moral black box -> response)
is it reasoning or emotion/intuition?
what is moral reasoning (haidt)
what is moral intuition (haidt)
- conscious mental activity. Intentional, effortful and controllable
- without any conscious awareness. gut reaction, immediate, intuitive response. Largely dependent on emotion
Moral dumbfounding study (haidt, koller & dias)
- what happened
- what was found?
- brother and sister kiss
- is this morally wrong?
= yes - what is its impossible for them to have children?
= yes
why?
= harms reputation
what if this consequence didn’t exist?
= still wrong
- participants defended the wrongness of this action even when reasons they gave were diffused
this is called moral dumbfounding
= reasoning processes not accessible
Whats the social intuitionist model (SIM, haidt)
judging something to be wrong is a function of affect-laden (emotion) intuitions
reasoning is a reaction - a post-hoc rationalisation
stimulus -> intuition -> verbal judgement -> reasoning to justify intuition/judgement
whats the dual-process model of moral judgement? (Greene)
-> trolly problem
- whats the utilitarian response
- whats the deontological response
what happens in the switch condition
what happens in the footbridge condition?
- controlled, effortful reasoning process
- gut-reaction, emotions, intuitions
switch
no direct contact - less emotion = reasoning wins
=utilitarian response overrides deontological (kill 1 person, save many = pull switch)
footbridge
direct contact - more emotion = emotional response wins
= deontological response overides utilitarian (don’t push man)
what the deontological option based on?
whats the utilitarian option based on?
do not kill innocence (emotion)
greatest good for greatest number (reasoning)
manipulating emotion
Valdesolo and desteno study
-> if negative emotion is reduced is a utilitarian response more likely to occur in the footbridge senario?
explain study
- condition 1 = watched funny show
= more likely to say appropriate compared to control condition
= experiencing positive emotion dampens the emotional adverseness
= allows the utilitarian response to be delivered by controlled reasoning processes
whats the moral dyad?
structure of a moral action
agent does something to a recipient of an action (patient)
Q - does the relationship between agent and patient make a difference to the moral judgement?
what are relational models?
name the 4 types
what’s the implication?
- used to describe human relationships in the context of moral judgements
(relational models influence moral judgements)
= for each relational model there is a moral value attached to it
- communal sharing (CS) = unity
- authority ranking (AR) = hierarchy
- equality matching (EM) = equality
- market pricing (MP) = proportionality
the way we judge actions to be right/wrong depends on the relational context under which the action takes place
Simpson, Laham and Fiske
-> do people deliver different kinds of moral judgements in different relational contexts?
main findings
e.g. siblings = CS = regulated by unity values
LOYALTY
siblings (CS) = judged to be more wrong if violated compared to an MP or AR relationship
RESPECT
student/professor (AR) = more wrong compared to CS relationship
PURITY
student/professor (AR) and customer/salesperson (MP) = more wrong
= we deliver different kinds of moral judgements depending on the relational context
what is the moral circle?
give examples for things in the
- center
- border
- outskirts
what has happened to its expansion over time
imagine a target. things in the centre = more worthy of moral concern
- baby
- animal
- rock
greater expansion = more care and concern given to entities
what does inclusion/exclusion discrepancy (IED) show?
Yaniv and Schul
(circling vs crossing: music festival experimental paradigm)
items have greater probability of being retained in the final choice under exclusion mindsets
inclusion mindset = smaller choice list compared to exclusion
(inclusion/exclusion discrepancy) IED and the moral circle
Laham study
1. what was the study?
- what did exclusion mindsets show
= what did this account for? - what was concluded
- 2 conditions
a) cross - exclude items not deemed of moral consideration
b) circle - include items deemed of moral consideration
THEN -> asked about attitudes towards a range of out-groups = different races, religious beliefs
- larger moral circles
= accounted for a range of positive attitude towards out-groups - subtle manipulation can change what we deem morally considerable and expand our circle = which has consequences for additional judgements
