La psicología evolutiva es un enfoque teórico en las ciencias sociales y naturales que examina la estructura psicológica desde una perspectiva evolutiva moderna . [1] Busca identificar qué rasgos psicológicos humanos son adaptaciones evolucionadas , es decir, los productos funcionales de la selección natural o la selección sexual en la evolución humana . El pensamiento adaptacionista sobre los mecanismos fisiológicos, como el corazón, los pulmones y el sistema inmunológico, es común en la biología evolutiva . Algunos psicólogos evolucionistas aplican el mismo pensamiento a la psicología, argumentando que elLa modularidad de la mente es similar a la del cuerpo y con diferentes adaptaciones modulares que cumplen diferentes funciones. Estos psicólogos evolucionistas sostienen que gran parte del comportamiento humano es el resultado de adaptaciones psicológicas que evolucionaron para resolver problemas recurrentes en entornos ancestrales humanos. [2]
La psicología evolutiva no es simplemente una subdisciplina de la psicología; su teoría evolutiva puede proporcionar un marco metateórico fundamental que integra todo el campo de la psicología de la misma manera que la biología evolutiva lo ha hecho para la biología. [3] [4] [5]
Los psicólogos evolutivos sostienen que los comportamientos o rasgos que ocurren universalmente en todas las culturas son buenos candidatos para adaptaciones evolutivas [6], incluidas las habilidades para inferir las emociones de otros, discernir parientes de no parientes, identificar y preferir parejas más saludables y cooperar con otros. Se han realizado hallazgos con respecto al comportamiento social humano relacionado con el infanticidio , la inteligencia , los patrones de matrimonio , la promiscuidad , la percepción de la belleza , el precio de la novia y la inversión de los padres . [7] Las teorías y los hallazgos de la psicología evolutiva tienen aplicaciones en muchos campos, incluidos la economía, el medio ambiente, la salud, el derecho, la administración, la psiquiatría , la política y la literatura. [8] [9]
La crítica de la psicología evolutiva implica cuestiones de comprobabilidad, supuestos cognitivos y evolutivos (como el funcionamiento modular del cerebro y una gran incertidumbre sobre el entorno ancestral), la importancia de las explicaciones no genéticas y no adaptativas, así como cuestiones políticas y éticas debidas. a las interpretaciones de los resultados de la investigación. [10] [11]
Alcance
Principios
La psicología evolutiva es un enfoque que considera la naturaleza humana como el producto de un conjunto universal de adaptaciones psicológicas evolucionadas a problemas recurrentes en el entorno ancestral. Los defensores sugieren que busca integrar la psicología en las otras ciencias naturales, enraizándola en la teoría organizativa de la biología ( teoría evolutiva ) y, por lo tanto, entendiendo la psicología como una rama de la biología . El antropólogo John Tooby y la psicóloga Leda Cosmides señalan:
La psicología evolutiva es el intento científico anticipado durante mucho tiempo de ensamblar a partir de las disciplinas humanas inconexas, fragmentarias y mutuamente contradictorias un marco de investigación único, lógicamente integrado para las ciencias psicológicas, sociales y del comportamiento, un marco que no solo incorpora las ciencias evolutivas en sobre una base plena e igual, pero que sistemáticamente resuelve todas las revisiones en las creencias existentes y la práctica de investigación que requiere tal síntesis. [12]
Así como la fisiología humana y la fisiología evolutiva han trabajado para identificar adaptaciones físicas del cuerpo que representan la "naturaleza fisiológica humana", el propósito de la psicología evolutiva es identificar adaptaciones emocionales y cognitivas evolucionadas que representan la "naturaleza psicológica humana". Según Steven Pinker , "no se trata de una sola teoría, sino de un gran conjunto de hipótesis" y un término que "también ha llegado a referirse a una forma particular de aplicar la teoría evolutiva a la mente, con énfasis en la adaptación, a nivel genético selección y modularidad ". La psicología evolutiva adopta una comprensión de la mente que se basa en la teoría computacional de la mente . Describe los procesos mentales como operaciones computacionales, de modo que, por ejemplo, una respuesta de miedo se describe como surgida de un cálculo neurológico que ingresa los datos percepcionales, por ejemplo, una imagen visual de una araña, y genera la reacción apropiada, por ejemplo, miedo a un posible peligro. animales. Bajo este punto de vista, cualquier aprendizaje de dominio general es imposible debido a la explosión combinatoria . La Psicología Evolutiva especifica el dominio como los problemas de supervivencia y reproducción. [13]
Si bien los filósofos generalmente han considerado que la mente humana incluye facultades amplias, como la razón y la lujuria, los psicólogos evolucionistas describen los mecanismos psicológicos evolucionados como enfocados estrechamente para lidiar con problemas específicos, como atrapar a tramposos o elegir pareja. La disciplina considera que el cerebro humano comprende muchos mecanismos funcionales [14] llamados adaptaciones psicológicas o mecanismos cognitivos evolucionados o módulos cognitivos , diseñados por el proceso de selección natural. Los ejemplos incluyen módulos de adquisición del lenguaje , mecanismos de evitación del incesto, mecanismos de detección de tramposos , preferencias de apareamiento específicas de inteligencia y sexo, mecanismos de búsqueda, mecanismos de seguimiento de alianzas, mecanismos de detección de agentes y otros. Algunos mecanismos, denominados de dominio específico , se ocupan de problemas adaptativos recurrentes a lo largo de la historia evolutiva humana. Los mecanismos de dominio general , por otro lado, se proponen para hacer frente a la novedad evolutiva. [15]
La psicología evolutiva tiene sus raíces en la psicología cognitiva y la biología evolutiva, pero también se basa en la ecología del comportamiento , la inteligencia artificial , la genética , la etología , la antropología , la arqueología , la biología y la zoología . Está estrechamente relacionado con la sociobiología , [6] pero existen diferencias clave entre ellos, incluido el énfasis en los mecanismos específicos del dominio en lugar de los generales , la relevancia de las medidas de aptitud actual , la importancia de la teoría del desajuste y la psicología en lugar del comportamiento. .
Las cuatro categorías de preguntas de Nikolaas Tinbergen pueden ayudar a aclarar las distinciones entre varios tipos de explicaciones diferentes, pero complementarias. [16] La psicología evolutiva se centra principalmente en el "¿por qué?" preguntas, mientras que la psicología tradicional se centra en el "¿cómo?" preguntas. [17]
Perspectiva secuencial frente a estática | |||
---|---|---|---|
Explicación histórica / evolutiva de la forma actual en términos de una secuencia histórica | Forma actual Explicación de la forma actual de especie | ||
Preguntas de cómo y por qué | Aproximadamente cómo funcionan las estructuras de un organismo individual | Ontogenia Explicaciones del desarrollo para los cambios en los individuos , desde el ADN hasta su forma actual | Mecanismo Explicaciones mecanicistas de cómo funcionan las estructuras de un organismo |
Evolutivo Por qué una especie evolucionó las estructuras (adaptaciones) que tiene | Filogenia La historia de la evolución de los cambios secuenciales en una especie durante muchas generaciones. | Adaptación Un rasgo de la especie que evolucionó para resolver un problema reproductivo o de supervivencia en el entorno ancestral. |
Local
La psicología evolutiva se basa en varias premisas fundamentales.
- El cerebro es un dispositivo de procesamiento de información y produce un comportamiento en respuesta a entradas externas e internas. [3] [18]
- Los mecanismos de adaptación del cerebro fueron moldeados por selección natural y sexual. [3] [18]
- Se especializan diferentes mecanismos neuronales para resolver problemas en el pasado evolutivo de la humanidad. [3] [18]
- El cerebro ha desarrollado mecanismos neuronales especializados que fueron diseñados para resolver problemas que se repitieron durante un tiempo evolutivo profundo, [18] dando a los humanos modernos mentes de la edad de piedra. [3] [19]
- La mayoría de los contenidos y procesos del cerebro son inconscientes; y la mayoría de los problemas mentales que parecen fáciles de resolver son en realidad problemas extremadamente difíciles que se resuelven inconscientemente mediante complicados mecanismos neuronales. [3]
- La psicología humana consta de muchos mecanismos especializados, cada uno sensible a diferentes clases de información o entradas. Estos mecanismos se combinan para producir un comportamiento manifiesto. [18]
Historia
La psicología evolutiva tiene sus raíces históricas en la teoría de la selección natural de Charles Darwin . [6] En El origen de las especies , Darwin predijo que la psicología desarrollaría una base evolutiva:
En un futuro lejano, veo campos abiertos para investigaciones mucho más importantes. La psicología se basará en un nuevo fundamento, el de la necesaria adquisición de cada poder y capacidad mental por gradación.
- Darwin, Charles (1859).. pag. 488 - a través de Wikisource .
Dos de sus últimos libros se dedicaron al estudio de las emociones y la psicología de los animales; El origen del hombre y la selección en relación con el sexo en 1871 y La expresión de las emociones en el hombre y los animales en 1872. El trabajo de Darwin inspiró el enfoque funcionalista de la psicología de William James . [6] Las teorías de la evolución, la adaptación y la selección natural de Darwin han proporcionado una idea de por qué los cerebros funcionan como lo hacen. [21] [22]
El contenido de la psicología evolutiva se ha derivado, por un lado, de las ciencias biológicas (especialmente la teoría evolutiva en lo que se refiere a los entornos humanos antiguos, el estudio de la paleoantropología y el comportamiento animal) y, por el otro, las ciencias humanas, especialmente la psicología.
La biología evolutiva como disciplina académica surgió con la síntesis moderna en las décadas de 1930 y 1940. [23] En la década de 1930 surgió el estudio del comportamiento animal (etología) con el trabajo del biólogo holandés Nikolaas Tinbergen y los biólogos austriacos Konrad Lorenz y Karl von Frisch .
Los artículos de WD Hamilton (1964) sobre aptitud inclusiva y las teorías de Robert Trivers (1972) [24] sobre la reciprocidad y la inversión de los padres ayudaron a establecer el pensamiento evolutivo en psicología y otras ciencias sociales. En 1975, Edward O. Wilson combinó la teoría evolutiva con estudios del comportamiento animal y social, basándose en los trabajos de Lorenz y Tinbergen, en su libro Sociobiology: The New Synthesis .
En la década de 1970, dos ramas principales se desarrollaron a partir de la etología. En primer lugar, el estudio del comportamiento social animal (incluidos los humanos) generó la sociobiología , definida por su principal proponente Edward O. Wilson en 1975 como "el estudio sistemático de la base biológica de todo comportamiento social" [25] y en 1978 como " la extensión de la biología de poblaciones y la teoría de la evolución a la organización social ". [26] En segundo lugar, estaba la ecología del comportamiento que ponía menos énfasis en el comportamiento social ; se centró en las bases ecológicas y evolutivas del comportamiento animal y humano .
En las décadas de 1970 y 1980, los departamentos universitarios comenzaron a incluir el término biología evolutiva en sus títulos. La era moderna de la psicología evolutiva fue introducida, en particular, por el libro de Donald Symons de 1979 La evolución de la sexualidad humana y Leda Cosmides y el libro de John Tooby de 1992 La mente adaptada . [6] David Buller observó que el término "psicología evolutiva" a veces se ve como una investigación basada en los compromisos metodológicos y teóricos específicos de ciertos investigadores de la escuela de Santa Bárbara (Universidad de California), por lo que algunos psicólogos evolucionistas prefieren denominar su trabajo en cambio, "ecología humana", "ecología del comportamiento humano" o "antropología evolutiva". [27]
De la psicología están las corrientes primarias de la psicología cognitiva , social y del desarrollo . Establecer alguna medida de la influencia relativa de la genética y el medio ambiente en el comportamiento ha sido el núcleo de la genética del comportamiento y sus variantes, en particular los estudios a nivel molecular que examinan la relación entre genes, neurotransmisores y comportamiento. La teoría de la herencia dual (DIT), desarrollada a fines de la década de 1970 y principios de la de 1980, tiene una perspectiva ligeramente diferente al tratar de explicar cómo el comportamiento humano es producto de dos procesos evolutivos diferentes e interactivos: la evolución genética y la evolución cultural . Algunos ven el DIT como un "término medio" entre los puntos de vista que enfatizan los universales humanos y los que enfatizan la variación cultural. [28]
Fundamentos teóricos
Las teorías en las que se basa la psicología evolutiva se originaron con el trabajo de Charles Darwin, incluidas sus especulaciones sobre los orígenes evolutivos de los instintos sociales en los humanos. La psicología evolutiva moderna, sin embargo, solo es posible gracias a los avances en la teoría evolutiva en el siglo XX.
Los psicólogos evolutivos dicen que la selección natural ha proporcionado a los humanos muchas adaptaciones psicológicas, de la misma manera que generó las adaptaciones anatómicas y fisiológicas de los humanos. [29] Al igual que con las adaptaciones en general, se dice que las adaptaciones psicológicas están especializadas para el entorno en el que evolucionó un organismo, el entorno de adaptación evolutiva. [29] [30] La selección sexual proporciona a los organismos adaptaciones relacionadas con el apareamiento. [29] Para los mamíferos machos , que tienen una tasa de reproducción potencial máxima relativamente alta, la selección sexual conduce a adaptaciones que les ayudan a competir por las hembras. [29] Para las hembras de mamíferos, con una tasa de reproducción potencial máxima relativamente baja, la selección sexual conduce a la elección, lo que ayuda a las hembras a seleccionar parejas de mayor calidad. [29] Charles Darwin describió tanto la selección natural como la selección sexual, y se basó en la selección de grupos para explicar la evolución del comportamiento altruista (abnegado). Pero la selección de grupo se consideró una explicación débil, porque en cualquier grupo los individuos menos altruistas tendrán más probabilidades de sobrevivir, y el grupo se volverá menos abnegado como un todo.
En 1964, William D. Hamilton propuso la teoría de la aptitud inclusiva , enfatizando una visión de la evolución centrada en los genes . Hamilton señaló que los genes pueden aumentar la replicación de copias de sí mismos en la próxima generación al influir en los rasgos sociales del organismo de tal manera que (estadísticamente) resulta en ayudar a la supervivencia y reproducción de otras copias de los mismos genes (más simplemente, copias idénticas). en los parientes cercanos del organismo). Según la regla de Hamilton , los comportamientos de abnegación (y los genes que los influyen) pueden evolucionar si, por lo general, ayudan tanto a los parientes cercanos del organismo que compensan con creces el sacrificio del animal individual. La teoría de la aptitud inclusiva resolvió el problema de cómo puede evolucionar el altruismo. Otras teorías también ayudan a explicar la evolución del comportamiento altruista, incluida la teoría de juegos evolutivos , la reciprocidad de ojo por ojo y la reciprocidad generalizada. Estas teorías ayudan a explicar el desarrollo del comportamiento altruista y dan cuenta de la hostilidad hacia los tramposos (individuos que se aprovechan del altruismo de los demás). [31]
Varias teorías evolutivas de nivel medio informan a la psicología evolutiva. La teoría de la selección r / K propone que algunas especies prosperan al tener muchas crías, mientras que otras siguen la estrategia de tener menos crías pero invirtiendo mucho más en cada una. Los humanos siguen la segunda estrategia. La teoría de la inversión parental explica cómo los padres invierten más o menos en la descendencia individual en función del éxito que puedan tener esos descendientes y, por lo tanto, cuánto podrían mejorar la aptitud inclusiva de los padres. De acuerdo con la hipótesis de Trivers-Willard , los padres en buenas condiciones tienden a invertir más en los hijos varones (que son más capaces de aprovechar las buenas condiciones), mientras que los padres en malas condiciones tienden a invertir más en las hijas (que son más capaces de tener éxito descendencia incluso en malas condiciones). Según la teoría de la historia de la vida , los animales desarrollan historias de vida para que coincidan con sus entornos, determinando detalles como la edad en la primera reproducción y el número de crías. La teoría de la herencia dual postula que los genes y la cultura humana han interactuado, con genes que afectan el desarrollo de la cultura, y la cultura, a su vez, afecta la evolución humana a nivel genético (ver también el efecto Baldwin ).
Mecanismos psicológicos evolucionados
La psicología evolutiva se basa en la hipótesis de que, al igual que los corazones, pulmones, hígados, riñones y sistemas inmunitarios, la cognición tiene una estructura funcional que tiene una base genética y, por tanto, ha evolucionado por selección natural. Al igual que otros órganos y tejidos, esta estructura funcional debe compartirse universalmente entre una especie y resolver problemas importantes de supervivencia y reproducción .
Los psicólogos evolutivos buscan comprender los mecanismos psicológicos mediante la comprensión de las funciones reproductivas y de supervivencia a las que podrían haber servido a lo largo de la historia evolutiva. [32] [ página necesaria ] Estos pueden incluir habilidades para inferir las emociones de otros, discernir parientes de no parientes, identificar y preferir parejas más saludables, cooperar con otros y seguir líderes. De acuerdo con la teoría de la selección natural, la psicología evolutiva ve a los humanos a menudo en conflicto con otros, incluidos compañeros y parientes. Por ejemplo, es posible que una madre desee destetar a su descendencia de la lactancia materna antes que su hijo, lo que la libera para invertir en descendencia adicional. [31] [33] La psicología evolutiva también reconoce el papel de la selección de parentesco y la reciprocidad en la evolución de rasgos prosociales como el altruismo. [31] Como los chimpancés y los bonobos , los humanos tienen instintos sociales sutiles y flexibles, lo que les permite formar familias extendidas, amistades para toda la vida y alianzas políticas. [31] En estudios que prueban predicciones teóricas, los psicólogos evolucionistas han realizado hallazgos modestos sobre temas como el infanticidio, la inteligencia, los patrones de matrimonio, la promiscuidad, la percepción de la belleza, el precio de la novia y la inversión de los padres. [7]
Temas históricos
Los defensores de la psicología evolutiva en la década de 1990 hicieron algunas exploraciones en eventos históricos, pero la respuesta de los expertos históricos fue muy negativa y ha habido poco esfuerzo para continuar esa línea de investigación. La historiadora Lynn Hunt dice que los historiadores se quejaron de que los investigadores:
han leído los estudios equivocados, malinterpretado los resultados de los experimentos o, peor aún, han recurrido a la neurociencia en busca de una ontología universalizadora, anti-representacional y antiintencional para reforzar sus afirmaciones. [34]
Hunt afirma que "los pocos intentos de construir un subcampo de la psicohistoria colapsaron bajo el peso de sus presuposiciones". Ella concluye que a partir de 2014 la "'cortina de hierro' entre historiadores y psicología ... permanece en pie". [35]
Productos de la evolución: adaptaciones, exaptaciones, subproductos y variación aleatoria
No todos los rasgos de los organismos son adaptaciones evolutivas. Como se indica en la tabla a continuación, los rasgos también pueden ser exaptaciones , subproductos de adaptaciones (a veces llamadas "enjutas") o variaciones aleatorias entre individuos. [36]
Se plantea la hipótesis de que las adaptaciones psicológicas son innatas o relativamente fáciles de aprender, y se manifiestan en culturas de todo el mundo. Por ejemplo, es probable que la capacidad de los niños pequeños para aprender un idioma prácticamente sin entrenamiento sea una adaptación psicológica. Por otro lado, los humanos ancestrales no leían ni escribían, por lo que hoy en día aprender a leer y escribir requiere un entrenamiento extenso y presumiblemente implica la reutilización de capacidades cognitivas que evolucionaron en respuesta a presiones de selección no relacionadas con el lenguaje escrito. [37] Sin embargo, las variaciones en el comportamiento manifiesto pueden resultar de mecanismos universales que interactúan con diferentes entornos locales. Por ejemplo, los caucásicos que se trasladan de un clima del norte al ecuador tendrán la piel más oscura. Los mecanismos que regulan su pigmentación no cambian; más bien, la entrada a esos mecanismos cambia, lo que resulta en una salida diferente.
Adaptación | Exaptación | Subproducto | Variación aleatoria | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Definición | Rasgo organísmico diseñado para resolver un problema (s) ancestral. Muestra complejidad, "diseño" especial, funcionalidad | Adaptación que se ha "rediseñado" para resolver un problema adaptativo diferente. | Subproducto de un mecanismo adaptativo sin función actual o ancestral | Variaciones aleatorias en una adaptación o subproducto |
Ejemplo fisiológico | Huesos / cordón umbilical | Huesos pequeños del oído interno | Color blanco de huesos / ombligo | Golpes en el cráneo, forma convexa o cóncava del ombligo |
Ejemplo psicológico | La capacidad de los niños pequeños para aprender a hablar con una instrucción mínima. | Atencion voluntaria | Capacidad para aprender a leer y escribir. | Variaciones en la inteligencia verbal |
Una de las tareas de la psicología evolutiva es identificar qué rasgos psicológicos probablemente sean adaptaciones, subproductos o variaciones aleatorias. George C. Williams sugirió que una "adaptación es un concepto especial y oneroso que solo debe usarse donde sea realmente necesario". [38] Como señalaron Williams y otros, las adaptaciones pueden identificarse por su improbable complejidad, universalidad de especies y funcionalidad adaptativa.
Adaptaciones obligatorias y facultativas
Una pregunta que puede plantearse acerca de una adaptación es si en general es obligatoria (relativamente robusta frente a la variación ambiental típica) o facultativa (sensible a la variación ambiental típica). [39] El dulce sabor del azúcar y el dolor de golpearse la rodilla contra el cemento son el resultado de adaptaciones psicológicas bastante obligadas; La variabilidad ambiental típica durante el desarrollo no afecta mucho su funcionamiento. Por el contrario, las adaptaciones facultativas son algo así como declaraciones "si-entonces". Por ejemplo, el estilo de apego de los adultos parece particularmente sensible a las experiencias de la primera infancia. Como adultos, la propensión a desarrollar vínculos estrechos y de confianza con los demás depende de si se puede confiar en los cuidadores de la primera infancia para brindar asistencia y atención confiables. La adaptación de la piel al bronceado está condicionada a la exposición al sol; este es un ejemplo de otra adaptación facultativa. Cuando una adaptación psicológica es facultativa, los psicólogos evolutivos se preocupan por cómo los factores ambientales y del desarrollo influyen en la expresión de la adaptación.
Universales culturales
Los psicólogos evolutivos sostienen que los comportamientos o rasgos que ocurren universalmente en todas las culturas son buenos candidatos para adaptaciones evolutivas. [6] Los universales culturales incluyen comportamientos relacionados con el lenguaje, la cognición, los roles sociales, los roles de género y la tecnología. [40] Las adaptaciones psicológicas evolucionadas (como la capacidad de aprender un idioma) interactúan con los insumos culturales para producir comportamientos específicos (por ejemplo, el idioma específico aprendido).
Las diferencias básicas de género, como un mayor deseo sexual entre los hombres y una mayor timidez entre las mujeres, [41] se explican como adaptaciones psicológicas sexualmente dimórficas que reflejan las diferentes estrategias reproductivas de hombres y mujeres. [31] [42]
Los psicólogos evolucionistas contrastan su enfoque con lo que denominan el " modelo estándar de las ciencias sociales ", según el cual la mente es un dispositivo cognitivo de propósito general formado casi en su totalidad por la cultura. [43] [44]
Entorno de adaptación evolutiva
La psicología evolutiva sostiene que para comprender adecuadamente las funciones del cerebro, es necesario comprender las propiedades del entorno en el que evolucionó el cerebro. Ese entorno a menudo se denomina "entorno de adaptación evolutiva". [30]
La idea de un entorno de adaptación evolutiva fue explorada por primera vez como parte de la teoría del apego por John Bowlby . [45] Este es el entorno al que se adapta un mecanismo evolucionado particular. Más específicamente, el entorno de adaptación evolutiva se define como el conjunto de presiones de selección históricamente recurrentes que formaron una adaptación determinada, así como aquellos aspectos del entorno que fueron necesarios para el correcto desarrollo y funcionamiento de la adaptación.
Los humanos, que comprenden el género Homo , aparecieron hace entre 1,5 y 2,5 millones de años, una época que coincide aproximadamente con el inicio del Pleistoceno hace 2,6 millones de años. Debido a que el Pleistoceno terminó hace apenas 12.000 años, la mayoría de las adaptaciones humanas evolucionaron recientemente durante el Pleistoceno o se mantuvieron mediante la selección estabilizadora durante el Pleistoceno. Por tanto, la psicología evolutiva propone que la mayoría de los mecanismos psicológicos humanos están adaptados a los problemas reproductivos que se encuentran con frecuencia en los entornos del Pleistoceno. [46] En términos generales, estos problemas incluyen los de crecimiento, desarrollo, diferenciación, mantenimiento, apareamiento, crianza y relaciones sociales.
El entorno de adaptación evolutiva es significativamente diferente al de la sociedad moderna. [47] Los antepasados de los humanos modernos vivían en grupos más pequeños, tenían culturas más unidas y tenían contextos más estables y ricos para la identidad y el significado. [47] Los investigadores buscan en las sociedades de cazadores-recolectores existentes pistas sobre cómo vivían los cazadores-recolectores en un entorno de adaptación evolutiva. [31] Desafortunadamente, las pocas sociedades de cazadores-recolectores supervivientes son diferentes entre sí, y han sido expulsadas de las mejores tierras a entornos hostiles, por lo que no está claro qué tan fielmente reflejan la cultura ancestral. [31] Sin embargo, en todo el mundo los cazadores-recolectores de banda pequeña ofrecen un sistema de desarrollo similar para los jóvenes ("modelo de infancia de cazador-recolector", Konner, 2005; "nicho de desarrollo evolucionado" o "nido evolucionado"; Narvaez et al. ., 2013). Las características del nicho son en gran medida las mismas que las de los mamíferos sociales, que evolucionaron hace más de 30 millones de años: experiencia perinatal relajante, varios años de lactancia materna a pedido, afecto o proximidad física casi constante, capacidad de respuesta a las necesidades (mitigación de la angustia de la descendencia), juego autodirigido, y para los humanos, múltiples cuidadores receptivos. Los estudios iniciales muestran la importancia de estos componentes en la vida temprana para obtener resultados positivos en los niños. [48] [49]
Los psicólogos evolucionistas a veces miran a los chimpancés, bonobos y otros grandes simios en busca de una idea del comportamiento ancestral humano. [31]
Desajustes
Dado que las adaptaciones de un organismo se adaptaron a su entorno ancestral, un entorno nuevo y diferente puede crear un desajuste. Debido a que la mayoría de los seres humanos están adaptados a los entornos del Pleistoceno , los mecanismos psicológicos a veces presentan "desajustes" con el entorno moderno. Un ejemplo es el hecho de que, aunque unas 10.000 personas mueren con armas de fuego en los EE. UU. Anualmente, [50] mientras que las arañas y las serpientes matan solo a un puñado, la gente aprende a temer a las arañas y serpientes con la misma facilidad con que lo hacen con un arma puntiaguda, y más fácilmente que una pistola sin punta, conejos o flores. [51] Una posible explicación es que las arañas y las serpientes fueron una amenaza para los antepasados humanos durante el Pleistoceno, mientras que las armas (y los conejos y las flores) no lo fueron. Por tanto, existe un desajuste entre la psicología evolucionada del aprendizaje del miedo y el entorno moderno de los seres humanos. [52] [53]
Este desajuste también se manifiesta en los fenómenos del estímulo supernormal , un estímulo que provoca una respuesta con más fuerza que el estímulo para el que evolucionó la respuesta. El término fue acuñado por Niko Tinbergen para referirse al comportamiento de animales no humanos, pero la psicóloga Deirdre Barrett dijo que la estimulación sobrenormal gobierna el comportamiento de los humanos con tanta fuerza como el de otros animales. Explicó la comida chatarra como un estímulo exagerado para los antojos de sal, azúcar y grasas, [54] y dice que la televisión es una exageración de señales sociales de risa, caras sonrientes y acciones que llaman la atención. [55] Las páginas centrales de las revistas y las hamburguesas dobles con queso tiran de los instintos destinados a un entorno de adaptación evolutiva donde el desarrollo de los senos era un signo de salud, juventud y fertilidad en una futura pareja, y la grasa era un nutriente raro y vital. [56] El psicólogo Mark van Vugt argumentó recientemente que el liderazgo organizacional moderno es un desajuste. [57] Su argumento es que los humanos no están adaptados para trabajar en grandes estructuras burocráticas anónimas con jerarquías formales. La mente humana todavía responde al liderazgo carismático y personalizado principalmente en el contexto de entornos informales e igualitarios. De ahí la insatisfacción y la alienación que experimentan muchos empleados. Los sueldos, las bonificaciones y otros privilegios aprovechan los instintos de estatus relativo, que atraen especialmente a los hombres a los puestos ejecutivos superiores. [58]
Métodos de búsqueda
La teoría evolutiva es heurística en el sentido de que puede generar hipótesis que podrían no desarrollarse a partir de otros enfoques teóricos. Uno de los principales objetivos de la investigación adaptacionista es identificar qué rasgos orgánicos es probable que sean adaptaciones y cuáles son subproductos o variaciones aleatorias. Como se señaló anteriormente, se espera que las adaptaciones muestren evidencia de complejidad, funcionalidad y universalidad de especies, mientras que los subproductos o la variación aleatoria no lo harán. Además, se espera que las adaptaciones se manifiesten como mecanismos próximos que interactúan con el medio ambiente de una manera generalmente obligada o facultativa (ver más arriba). Los psicólogos evolutivos también están interesados en identificar estos mecanismos próximos (a veces denominados "mecanismos mentales" o "adaptaciones psicológicas") y qué tipo de información toman como entrada, cómo procesan esa información y sus salidas. [39] La psicología evolutiva del desarrollo , o "evo-devo", se centra en cómo las adaptaciones pueden activarse en ciertos momentos del desarrollo (p. Ej., Pérdida de los dientes de leche, adolescencia, etc.) o cómo los eventos durante el desarrollo de un individuo pueden alterar la historia de vida. trayectorias.
Los psicólogos evolutivos utilizan varias estrategias para desarrollar y probar hipótesis sobre si es probable que un rasgo psicológico sea una adaptación evolucionada. Buss (2011) [59] señala que estos métodos incluyen:
Coherencia intercultural. Se presume que las características que han demostrado ser universales humanos transculturales , como sonreír, llorar y las expresiones faciales, son adaptaciones psicológicas evolucionadas. Varios psicólogos evolutivos han recopilado conjuntos de datos masivos de culturas de todo el mundo para evaluar la universalidad intercultural.
Función a la forma (o "problema a la solución"). El hecho de que los hombres, pero no las mujeres, corren el riesgo de una posible identificación errónea de la descendencia genética (lo que se conoce como "inseguridad de paternidad") llevó a los psicólogos evolutivos a plantear la hipótesis de que, en comparación con las mujeres, los celos masculinos se centrarían más en la infidelidad sexual que en la emocional.
De la forma a la función (ingeniería inversa o "solución al problema"). Las náuseas matutinas y las aversiones asociadas a ciertos tipos de alimentos durante el embarazo parecían tener las características de una adaptación evolucionada (complejidad y universalidad). Margie Profet planteó la hipótesis de que la función era evitar la ingestión de toxinas durante el embarazo temprano que podrían dañar al feto (pero que de otra manera probablemente serían inofensivas para las mujeres sanas no embarazadas).
Módulos neurológicos correspondientes. La psicología evolutiva y la neuropsicología cognitiva son mutuamente compatibles: la psicología evolutiva ayuda a identificar las adaptaciones psicológicas y sus funciones evolutivas últimas, mientras que la neuropsicología ayuda a identificar las manifestaciones próximas de estas adaptaciones.
Adaptabilidad evolutiva actual. Además de los modelos evolutivos que sugieren que la evolución ocurre a lo largo de grandes períodos de tiempo, investigaciones recientes han demostrado que algunos cambios evolutivos pueden ser rápidos y dramáticos. En consecuencia, algunos psicólogos evolutivos se han centrado en el impacto de los rasgos psicológicos en el entorno actual. Dicha investigación se puede utilizar para informar estimaciones de la prevalencia de rasgos a lo largo del tiempo. Tal trabajo ha sido informativo en el estudio de la psicopatología evolutiva. [60]
Los psicólogos evolutivos también utilizan diversas fuentes de datos para realizar pruebas, incluidos experimentos, registros arqueológicos , datos de sociedades de cazadores-recolectores, estudios de observación, datos de neurociencia, autoinformes y encuestas, registros públicos y productos humanos. [61] Recientemente, se han introducido métodos y herramientas adicionales basados en escenarios ficticios, [62] modelos matemáticos [63] y simulaciones por computadora de múltiples agentes . [64]
Principales áreas de investigación
Las áreas fundamentales de investigación en psicología evolutiva se pueden dividir en amplias categorías de problemas adaptativos que surgen de la propia teoría de la evolución: supervivencia, apareamiento, paternidad, familia y parentesco, interacciones con no parientes y evolución cultural.
Supervivencia y adaptaciones psicológicas a nivel individual
Los problemas de supervivencia son objetivos claros para la evolución de las adaptaciones físicas y psicológicas. Los principales problemas que enfrentaron los antepasados de los humanos actuales incluyeron la selección y adquisición de alimentos; selección de territorio y refugio físico; y evitar depredadores y otras amenazas ambientales. [sesenta y cinco]
Conciencia
La conciencia cumple con los criterios de George Williams de universalidad, complejidad [66] y funcionalidad de las especies , y es un rasgo que aparentemente aumenta la aptitud. [67]
En su artículo "Evolución de la conciencia", John Eccles sostiene que las adaptaciones anatómicas y físicas especiales de la corteza cerebral de los mamíferos dieron lugar a la conciencia. [68] En contraste, otros han argumentado que el circuito recursivo que suscribe la conciencia es mucho más primitivo, habiendo evolucionado inicialmente en especies pre-mamíferos porque mejora la capacidad de interacción con ambientes sociales y naturales al proporcionar un ahorro de energía "neutral". engranaje en una máquina de salida de motor que de otro modo sería costosa en energía. [69] Una vez en su lugar, este circuito recursivo bien puede haber proporcionado una base para el desarrollo posterior de muchas de las funciones que la conciencia facilita en los organismos superiores, como lo describe Bernard J. Baars . [70] Richard Dawkins sugirió que los humanos desarrollaron la conciencia para convertirse en sujetos de pensamiento. [71] Daniel Povinelli sugiere que los grandes simios trepadores de árboles desarrollaron la conciencia para tener en cuenta la propia masa cuando se movían con seguridad entre las ramas de los árboles. [71] De acuerdo con esta hipótesis, Gordon Gallup descubrió que los chimpancés y los orangutanes, pero no los pequeños monos o los gorilas terrestres, demostraban autoconciencia en las pruebas de espejo. [71]
El concepto de conciencia puede referirse a la acción voluntaria, la conciencia o la vigilia. Sin embargo, incluso el comportamiento voluntario implica mecanismos inconscientes. Muchos procesos cognitivos tienen lugar en el inconsciente cognitivo, inaccesible para la conciencia consciente. Algunos comportamientos son conscientes cuando se aprenden, pero luego se vuelven inconscientes, aparentemente automáticos. El aprendizaje, especialmente el aprendizaje implícito de una habilidad, puede tener lugar fuera de la conciencia. Por ejemplo, muchas personas saben cómo girar a la derecha cuando andan en bicicleta, pero muy pocas pueden explicar con precisión cómo lo hacen. La psicología evolutiva aborda el autoengaño como una adaptación que puede mejorar los resultados de uno en los intercambios sociales. [71]
El sueño puede haber evolucionado para conservar energía cuando la actividad sería menos fructífera o más peligrosa, como por la noche, y especialmente durante la temporada de invierno. [71]
Sensación y percepción
Muchos expertos, como Jerry Fodor , escriben que el propósito de la percepción es el conocimiento, pero los psicólogos evolucionistas sostienen que su propósito principal es guiar la acción. [72] Por ejemplo, dicen, la percepción de profundidad parece haber evolucionado no para ayudarnos a conocer las distancias a otros objetos, sino más bien para ayudarnos a movernos en el espacio. [72] Los psicólogos evolucionistas dicen que los animales, desde los cangrejos violinistas hasta los humanos, usan la vista para evitar colisiones, lo que sugiere que la visión es básicamente para dirigir la acción, no para proporcionar conocimiento. [72]
Building and maintaining sense organs is metabolically expensive, so these organs evolve only when they improve an organism's fitness.[72] More than half the brain is devoted to processing sensory information, and the brain itself consumes roughly one-fourth of one's metabolic resources, so the senses must provide exceptional benefits to fitness.[72] Perception accurately mirrors the world; animals get useful, accurate information through their senses.[72]
Scientists who study perception and sensation have long understood the human senses as adaptations to their surrounding worlds.[72] Depth perception consists of processing over half a dozen visual cues, each of which is based on a regularity of the physical world.[72] Vision evolved to respond to the narrow range of electromagnetic energy that is plentiful and that does not pass through objects.[72] Sound waves go around corners and interact with obstacles, creating a complex pattern that includes useful information about the sources of and distances to objects.[72] Larger animals naturally make lower-pitched sounds as a consequence of their size.[72] The range over which an animal hears, on the other hand, is determined by adaptation. Homing pigeons, for example, can hear very low-pitched sound (infrasound) that carries great distances, even though most smaller animals detect higher-pitched sounds.[72] Taste and smell respond to chemicals in the environment that are thought to have been significant for fitness in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.[72] For example, salt and sugar were apparently both valuable to the human or pre-human inhabitants of the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, so present day humans have an intrinsic hunger for salty and sweet tastes.[72] The sense of touch is actually many senses, including pressure, heat, cold, tickle, and pain.[72] Pain, while unpleasant, is adaptive.[72] An important adaptation for senses is range shifting, by which the organism becomes temporarily more or less sensitive to sensation.[72] For example, one's eyes automatically adjust to dim or bright ambient light.[72] Sensory abilities of different organisms often coevolve, as is the case with the hearing of echolocating bats and that of the moths that have evolved to respond to the sounds that the bats make.[72]
Evolutionary psychologists contend that perception demonstrates the principle of modularity, with specialized mechanisms handling particular perception tasks.[72] For example, people with damage to a particular part of the brain suffer from the specific defect of not being able to recognize faces (prosopagnosia).[72] Evolutionary psychology suggests that this indicates a so-called face-reading module.[72]
Learning and facultative adaptations
In evolutionary psychology, learning is said to be accomplished through evolved capacities, specifically facultative adaptations.[73] Facultative adaptations express themselves differently depending on input from the environment.[73] Sometimes the input comes during development and helps shape that development.[73] For example, migrating birds learn to orient themselves by the stars during a critical period in their maturation.[73] Evolutionary psychologists believe that humans also learn language along an evolved program, also with critical periods.[73] The input can also come during daily tasks, helping the organism cope with changing environmental conditions.[73] For example, animals evolved Pavlovian conditioning in order to solve problems about causal relationships.[73] Animals accomplish learning tasks most easily when those tasks resemble problems that they faced in their evolutionary past, such as a rat learning where to find food or water.[73] Learning capacities sometimes demonstrate differences between the sexes.[73] In many animal species, for example, males can solve spatial problem faster and more accurately than females, due to the effects of male hormones during development.[73] The same might be true of humans.[73]
Emotion and motivation
Motivations direct and energize behavior, while emotions provide the affective component to motivation, positive or negative.[74] In the early 1970s, Paul Ekman and colleagues began a line of research which suggests that many emotions are universal.[74] He found evidence that humans share at least five basic emotions: fear, sadness, happiness, anger, and disgust.[74] Social emotions evidently evolved to motivate social behaviors that were adaptive in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness.[74] For example, spite seems to work against the individual but it can establish an individual's reputation as someone to be feared.[74] Shame and pride can motivate behaviors that help one maintain one's standing in a community, and self-esteem is one's estimate of one's status.[31][74] Motivation has a neurobiological basis in the reward system of the brain. Recently, it has been suggested that reward systems may evolve in such a way that there may be an inherent or unavoidable trade-off in the motivational system for activities of short versus long duration.[75]
Cognition
Cognition refers to internal representations of the world and internal information processing. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, cognition is not "general purpose," but uses heuristics, or strategies, that generally increase the likelihood of solving problems that the ancestors of present-day humans routinely faced. For example, present day humans are far more likely to solve logic problems that involve detecting cheating (a common problem given humans' social nature) than the same logic problem put in purely abstract terms.[76] Since the ancestors of present-day humans did not encounter truly random events, present day humans may be cognitively predisposed to incorrectly identify patterns in random sequences. "Gamblers' Fallacy" is one example of this. Gamblers may falsely believe that they have hit a "lucky streak" even when each outcome is actually random and independent of previous trials. Most people believe that if a fair coin has been flipped 9 times and Heads appears each time, that on the tenth flip, there is a greater than 50% chance of getting Tails.[74] Humans find it far easier to make diagnoses or predictions using frequency data than when the same information is presented as probabilities or percentages, presumably because the ancestors of present-day humans lived in relatively small tribes (usually with fewer than 150 people) where frequency information was more readily available.[74]
Personality
Evolutionary psychology is primarily interested in finding commonalities between people, or basic human psychological nature. From an evolutionary perspective, the fact that people have fundamental differences in personality traits initially presents something of a puzzle.[77] (Note: The field of behavioral genetics is concerned with statistically partitioning differences between people into genetic and environmental sources of variance. However, understanding the concept of heritability can be tricky – heritability refers only to the differences between people, never the degree to which the traits of an individual are due to environmental or genetic factors, since traits are always a complex interweaving of both.)
Personality traits are conceptualized by evolutionary psychologists as due to normal variation around an optimum, due to frequency-dependent selection (behavioral polymorphisms), or as facultative adaptations. Like variability in height, some personality traits may simply reflect inter-individual variability around a general optimum.[77] Or, personality traits may represent different genetically predisposed "behavioral morphs" – alternate behavioral strategies that depend on the frequency of competing behavioral strategies in the population. For example, if most of the population is generally trusting and gullible, the behavioral morph of being a "cheater" (or, in the extreme case, a sociopath) may be advantageous.[78] Finally, like many other psychological adaptations, personality traits may be facultative – sensitive to typical variations in the social environment, especially during early development. For example, later born children are more likely than first borns to be rebellious, less conscientious and more open to new experiences, which may be advantageous to them given their particular niche in family structure.[79] It is important to note that shared environmental influences do play a role in personality and are not always of less importance than genetic factors. However, shared environmental influences often decrease to near zero after adolescence but do not completely disappear.[80]
Language
According to Steven Pinker, who builds on the work by Noam Chomsky, the universal human ability to learn to talk between the ages of 1 – 4, basically without training, suggests that language acquisition is a distinctly human psychological adaptation (see, in particular, Pinker's The Language Instinct). Pinker and Bloom (1990) argue that language as a mental faculty shares many likenesses with the complex organs of the body which suggests that, like these organs, language has evolved as an adaptation, since this is the only known mechanism by which such complex organs can develop.[81]
Pinker follows Chomsky in arguing that the fact that children can learn any human language with no explicit instruction suggests that language, including most of grammar, is basically innate and that it only needs to be activated by interaction. Chomsky himself does not believe language to have evolved as an adaptation, but suggests that it likely evolved as a byproduct of some other adaptation, a so-called spandrel. But Pinker and Bloom argue that the organic nature of language strongly suggests that it has an adaptational origin.[82]
Evolutionary psychologists hold that the FOXP2 gene may well be associated with the evolution of human language.[83] In the 1980s, psycholinguist Myrna Gopnik identified a dominant gene that causes language impairment in the KE family of Britain.[83] This gene turned out to be a mutation of the FOXP2 gene.[83] Humans have a unique allele of this gene, which has otherwise been closely conserved through most of mammalian evolutionary history.[83] This unique allele seems to have first appeared between 100 and 200 thousand years ago, and it is now all but universal in humans.[83] However, the once-popular idea that FOXP2 is a 'grammar gene' or that it triggered the emergence of language in Homo sapiens is now widely discredited.[84]
Currently several competing theories about the evolutionary origin of language coexist, none of them having achieved a general consensus.[85] Researchers of language acquisition in primates and humans such as Michael Tomasello and Talmy Givón, argue that the innatist framework has understated the role of imitation in learning and that it is not at all necessary to posit the existence of an innate grammar module to explain human language acquisition. Tomasello argues that studies of how children and primates actually acquire communicative skills suggests that humans learn complex behavior through experience, so that instead of a module specifically dedicated to language acquisition, language is acquired by the same cognitive mechanisms that are used to acquire all other kinds of socially transmitted behavior.[86]
On the issue of whether language is best seen as having evolved as an adaptation or as a spandrel, evolutionary biologist W. Tecumseh Fitch, following Stephen J. Gould, argues that it is unwarranted to assume that every aspect of language is an adaptation, or that language as a whole is an adaptation. He criticizes some strands of evolutionary psychology for suggesting a pan-adaptionist view of evolution, and dismisses Pinker and Bloom's question of whether "Language has evolved as an adaptation" as being misleading. He argues instead that from a biological viewpoint the evolutionary origins of language is best conceptualized as being the probable result of a convergence of many separate adaptations into a complex system.[87] A similar argument is made by Terrence Deacon who in The Symbolic Species argues that the different features of language have co-evolved with the evolution of the mind and that the ability to use symbolic communication is integrated in all other cognitive processes.[88]
If the theory that language could have evolved as a single adaptation is accepted, the question becomes which of its many functions has been the basis of adaptation. Several evolutionary hypotheses have been posited: that language evolved for the purpose of social grooming, that it evolved as a way to show mating potential or that it evolved to form social contracts. Evolutionary psychologists recognize that these theories are all speculative and that much more evidence is required to understand how language might have been selectively adapted.[89]
Mating
Given that sexual reproduction is the means by which genes are propagated into future generations, sexual selection plays a large role in human evolution. Human mating, then, is of interest to evolutionary psychologists who aim to investigate evolved mechanisms to attract and secure mates.[90] Several lines of research have stemmed from this interest, such as studies of mate selection[91][92][93] mate poaching,[94] mate retention,[95] mating preferences[96] and conflict between the sexes.[97]
In 1972 Robert Trivers published an influential paper[98] on sex differences that is now referred to as parental investment theory. The size differences of gametes (anisogamy) is the fundamental, defining difference between males (small gametes – sperm) and females (large gametes – ova). Trivers noted that anisogamy typically results in different levels of parental investment between the sexes, with females initially investing more. Trivers proposed that this difference in parental investment leads to the sexual selection of different reproductive strategies between the sexes and to sexual conflict. For example, he suggested that the sex that invests less in offspring will generally compete for access to the higher-investing sex to increase their inclusive fitness (also see Bateman's principle[99]). Trivers posited that differential parental investment led to the evolution of sexual dimorphisms in mate choice, intra- and inter- sexual reproductive competition, and courtship displays. In mammals, including humans, females make a much larger parental investment than males (i.e. gestation followed by childbirth and lactation). Parental investment theory is a branch of life history theory.
Buss and Schmitt's (1993) Sexual Strategies Theory[100] proposed that, due to differential parental investment, humans have evolved sexually dimorphic adaptations related to "sexual accessibility, fertility assessment, commitment seeking and avoidance, immediate and enduring resource procurement, paternity certainty, assessment of mate value, and parental investment." Their Strategic Interference Theory[101] suggested that conflict between the sexes occurs when the preferred reproductive strategies of one sex interfere with those of the other sex, resulting in the activation of emotional responses such as anger or jealousy.
Women are generally more selective when choosing mates, especially under long term mating conditions. However, under some circumstances, short term mating can provide benefits to women as well, such as fertility insurance, trading up to better genes, reducing risk of inbreeding, and insurance protection of her offspring.[102]
Due to male paternity insecurity, sex differences have been found in the domains of sexual jealousy.[103][104] Females generally react more adversely to emotional infidelity and males will react more to sexual infidelity. This particular pattern is predicted because the costs involved in mating for each sex are distinct. Women, on average, should prefer a mate who can offer resources (e.g., financial, commitment), thus, a woman risks losing such resources with a mate who commits emotional infidelity. Men, on the other hand, are never certain of the genetic paternity of their children because they do not bear the offspring themselves ("paternity insecurity"). This suggests that for men sexual infidelity would generally be more aversive than emotional infidelity because investing resources in another man's offspring does not lead to propagation of their own genes.[105]
Another interesting line of research is that which examines women's mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle.[106][107] The theoretical underpinning of this research is that ancestral women would have evolved mechanisms to select mates with certain traits depending on their hormonal status. Known as the ovulatory shift hypothesis, the theory posits that, during the ovulatory phase of a woman's cycle (approximately days 10–15 of a woman's cycle),[108] a woman who mated with a male with high genetic quality would have been more likely, on average, to produce and bear a healthy offspring than a woman who mated with a male with low genetic quality. These putative preferences are predicted to be especially apparent for short-term mating domains because a potential male mate would only be offering genes to a potential offspring. This hypothesis allows researchers to examine whether women select mates who have characteristics that indicate high genetic quality during the high fertility phase of their ovulatory cycles. Indeed, studies have shown that women's preferences vary across the ovulatory cycle. In particular, Haselton and Miller (2006) showed that highly fertile women prefer creative but poor men as short-term mates. Creativity may be a proxy for good genes.[109] Research by Gangestad et al. (2004) indicates that highly fertile women prefer men who display social presence and intrasexual competition; these traits may act as cues that would help women predict which men may have, or would be able to acquire, resources.
Parenting
Reproduction is always costly for women, and can also be for men. Individuals are limited in the degree to which they can devote time and resources to producing and raising their young, and such expenditure may also be detrimental to their future condition, survival and further reproductive output. Parental investment is any parental expenditure (time, energy etc.) that benefits one offspring at a cost to parents' ability to invest in other components of fitness (Clutton-Brock 1991: 9; Trivers 1972). Components of fitness (Beatty 1992) include the well-being of existing offspring, parents' future reproduction, and inclusive fitness through aid to kin (Hamilton, 1964). Parental investment theory is a branch of life history theory.
Robert Trivers' theory of parental investment predicts that the sex making the largest investment in lactation, nurturing and protecting offspring will be more discriminating in mating and that the sex that invests less in offspring will compete for access to the higher investing sex (see Bateman's principle).[99] Sex differences in parental effort are important in determining the strength of sexual selection.
The benefits of parental investment to the offspring are large and are associated with the effects on condition, growth, survival and ultimately, on reproductive success of the offspring. However, these benefits can come at the cost of parent's ability to reproduce in the future e.g. through the increased risk of injury when defending offspring against predators, the loss of mating opportunities whilst rearing offspring and an increase in the time to the next reproduction. Overall, parents are selected to maximize the difference between the benefits and the costs, and parental care will likely evolve when the benefits exceed the costs.
The Cinderella effect is an alleged high incidence of stepchildren being physically, emotionally or sexually abused, neglected, murdered, or otherwise mistreated at the hands of their stepparents at significantly higher rates than their genetic counterparts. It takes its name from the fairy tale character Cinderella, who in the story was cruelly mistreated by her stepmother and stepsisters.[110] Daly and Wilson (1996) noted: "Evolutionary thinking led to the discovery of the most important risk factor for child homicide – the presence of a stepparent. Parental efforts and investments are valuable resources, and selection favors those parental psyches that allocate effort effectively to promote fitness. The adaptive problems that challenge parental decision making include both the accurate identification of one's offspring and the allocation of one's resources among them with sensitivity to their needs and abilities to convert parental investment into fitness increments…. Stepchildren were seldom or never so valuable to one's expected fitness as one's own offspring would be, and those parental psyches that were easily parasitized by just any appealing youngster must always have incurred a selective disadvantage"(Daly & Wilson, 1996, pp. 64–65). However, they note that not all stepparents will "want" to abuse their partner's children, or that genetic parenthood is any insurance against abuse. They see step parental care as primarily "mating effort" towards the genetic parent.[111]
Family and kin
Inclusive fitness is the sum of an organism's classical fitness (how many of its own offspring it produces and supports) and the number of equivalents of its own offspring it can add to the population by supporting others.[112] The first component is called classical fitness by Hamilton (1964).
From the gene's point of view, evolutionary success ultimately depends on leaving behind the maximum number of copies of itself in the population. Until 1964, it was generally believed that genes only achieved this by causing the individual to leave the maximum number of viable offspring. However, in 1964 W. D. Hamilton proved mathematically that, because close relatives of an organism share some identical genes, a gene can also increase its evolutionary success by promoting the reproduction and survival of these related or otherwise similar individuals. Hamilton concluded that this leads natural selection to favor organisms that would behave in ways that maximize their inclusive fitness. It is also true that natural selection favors behavior that maximizes personal fitness.
Hamilton's rule describes mathematically whether or not a gene for altruistic behavior will spread in a population:
where
- is the reproductive cost to the altruist,
- is the reproductive benefit to the recipient of the altruistic behavior, and
- is the probability, above the population average, of the individuals sharing an altruistic gene – commonly viewed as "degree of relatedness".
The concept serves to explain how natural selection can perpetuate altruism. If there is an "altruism gene" (or complex of genes) that influences an organism's behavior to be helpful and protective of relatives and their offspring, this behavior also increases the proportion of the altruism gene in the population, because relatives are likely to share genes with the altruist due to common descent. Altruists may also have some way to recognize altruistic behavior in unrelated individuals and be inclined to support them. As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene (Chapter 6) and The Extended Phenotype,[113] this must be distinguished from the green-beard effect.
Although it is generally true that humans tend to be more altruistic toward their kin than toward non-kin, the relevant proximate mechanisms that mediate this cooperation have been debated (see kin recognition), with some arguing that kin status is determined primarily via social and cultural factors (such as co-residence, maternal association of sibs, etc.),[114] while others have argued that kin recognition can also be mediated by biological factors such as facial resemblance and immunogenetic similarity of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).[115] For a discussion of the interaction of these social and biological kin recognition factors see Lieberman, Tooby, and Cosmides (2007)[116] (PDF).
Whatever the proximate mechanisms of kin recognition there is substantial evidence that humans act generally more altruistically to close genetic kin compared to genetic non-kin.[117][118][119]
Interactions with non-kin / reciprocity
Although interactions with non-kin are generally less altruistic compared to those with kin, cooperation can be maintained with non-kin via mutually beneficial reciprocity as was proposed by Robert Trivers.[24] If there are repeated encounters between the same two players in an evolutionary game in which each of them can choose either to "cooperate" or "defect," then a strategy of mutual cooperation may be favored even if it pays each player, in the short term, to defect when the other cooperates. Direct reciprocity can lead to the evolution of cooperation only if the probability, w, of another encounter between the same two individuals exceeds the cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act:
- w > c/b
Reciprocity can also be indirect if information about previous interactions is shared. Reputation allows evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Natural selection favors strategies that base the decision to help on the reputation of the recipient: studies show that people who are more helpful are more likely to receive help. The calculations of indirect reciprocity are complicated and only a tiny fraction of this universe has been uncovered, but again a simple rule has emerged.[120] Indirect reciprocity can only promote cooperation if the probability, q, of knowing someone's reputation exceeds the cost-to-benefit ratio of the altruistic act:
- q > c/b
One important problem with this explanation is that individuals may be able to evolve the capacity to obscure their reputation, reducing the probability, q, that it will be known.[121]
Trivers argues that friendship and various social emotions evolved in order to manage reciprocity.[122] Liking and disliking, he says, evolved to help present day humans' ancestors form coalitions with others who reciprocated and to exclude those who did not reciprocate.[122] Moral indignation may have evolved to prevent one's altruism from being exploited by cheaters, and gratitude may have motivated present day humans' ancestors to reciprocate appropriately after benefiting from others' altruism.[122] Likewise, present day humans feel guilty when they fail to reciprocate.[122] These social motivations match what evolutionary psychologists expect to see in adaptations that evolved to maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks of reciprocity.[122]
Evolutionary psychologists say that humans have psychological adaptations that evolved specifically to help us identify nonreciprocators, commonly referred to as "cheaters."[122] In 1993, Robert Frank and his associates found that participants in a prisoner's dilemma scenario were often able to predict whether their partners would "cheat," based on a half-hour of unstructured social interaction.[122] In a 1996 experiment, for example, Linda Mealey and her colleagues found that people were better at remembering the faces of people when those faces were associated with stories about those individuals cheating (such as embezzling money from a church).[122]
Strong reciprocity (or "tribal reciprocity")
Humans may have an evolved set of psychological adaptations that predispose them to be more cooperative than otherwise would be expected with members of their tribal in-group, and, more nasty to members of tribal out groups. These adaptations may have been a consequence of tribal warfare.[123] Humans may also have predispositions for "altruistic punishment" – to punish in-group members who violate in-group rules, even when this altruistic behavior cannot be justified in terms of helping those you are related to (kin selection), cooperating with those who you will interact with again (direct reciprocity), or cooperating to better your reputation with others (indirect reciprocity).[124][125]
Psicología y cultura evolutivas
Though evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors, determined by species-typical psychological adaptations, considerable work has been done on how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989).[126] Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989), among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured and patterned ways, to be used as a rich (but by no means the only) source of information out of which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence, this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect." (Tooby and Cosmides 1989).[126]
En subcampos de psicología
Developmental psychology
According to Paul Baltes, the benefits granted by evolutionary selection decrease with age. Natural selection has not eliminated many harmful conditions and nonadaptive characteristics that appear among older adults, such as Alzheimer disease. If it were a disease that killed 20-year-olds instead of 70-year-olds this may have been a disease that natural selection could have eliminated ages ago. Thus, unaided by evolutionary pressures against nonadaptive conditions, modern humans suffer the aches, pains, and infirmities of aging and as the benefits of evolutionary selection decrease with age, the need for modern technological mediums against non-adaptive conditions increases.[127]
Social psychology
As humans are a highly social species, there are many adaptive problems associated with navigating the social world (e.g., maintaining allies, managing status hierarchies, interacting with outgroup members, coordinating social activities, collective decision-making). Researchers in the emerging field of evolutionary social psychology have made many discoveries pertaining to topics traditionally studied by social psychologists, including person perception, social cognition, attitudes, altruism, emotions, group dynamics, leadership, motivation, prejudice, intergroup relations, and cross-cultural differences.[128][129][130][131]
When endeavouring to solve a problem humans at an early age show determination while chimpanzees have no comparable facial expression. Researchers suspect the human determined expression evolved because when a human is determinedly working on a problem other people will frequently help.[132]
Abnormal psychology
Adaptationist hypotheses regarding the etiology of psychological disorders are often based on analogies between physiological and psychological dysfunctions,[133] as noted in the table below. Prominent theorists and evolutionary psychiatrists include Michael T. McGuire, Anthony Stevens, and Randolph M. Nesse. They, and others, suggest that mental disorders are due to the interactive effects of both nature and nurture, and often have multiple contributing causes.[17]
Causal mechanism of failure or malfunction of adaptation | Physiological Example | Hypothesized Psychological Example |
---|---|---|
Functioning adaptation (adaptive defense) | Fever / Vomiting (functional responses to infection or ingestion of toxins) | Mild depression or anxiety (functional responses to mild loss or stress[136]/ reduction of social interactions to prevent infection by contagious pathogens)[137] |
By-product of an adaptation(s) | Intestinal gas (byproduct of digestion of fiber) | Sexual fetishes (?) (possible byproduct of normal sexual arousal adaptations that have 'imprinted' on unusual objects or situations) |
Adaptations with multiple effects | Sickle cell disease (Gene that imparts malaria resistance, in homozygous form, causes sickle cell anemia) | Schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (May be side-effects of adaptations for high levels of creativity, perhaps dependent on alternate developmental trajectories) |
Malfunctioning adaptation | Allergies (over-reactive immunological responses) | Autism (possible malfunctioning of theory of mind module) |
Frequency-dependent morphs | The two sexes / Different blood and immune system types | Personality disorders (may represent alternative behavioral strategies possibly dependent on its prevalence in the population) |
Mismatch between ancestral & current environments | Type 2 Diabetes (May be related to the abundance of sugary foods in the modern world) | More frequent modern interaction with strangers (compared to family and close friends) may predispose greater incidence of depression & anxiety |
Tails of normal distribution (bell curve) | Dwarfism or gigantism | Extremities of the distribution of cognitive and personality traits (e.g., extremely introversion and extraversion, or intellectual giftedness and intellectual disability) |
Evolutionary psychologists have suggested that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder may reflect a side-effect of genes with fitness benefits, such as increased creativity.[138] (Some individuals with bipolar disorder are especially creative during their manic phases and the close relatives of people with schizophrenia have been found to be more likely to have creative professions.[138]) A 1994 report by the American Psychiatry Association found that people suffered from schizophrenia at roughly the same rate in Western and non-Western cultures, and in industrialized and pastoral societies, suggesting that schizophrenia is not a disease of civilization nor an arbitrary social invention.[138] Sociopathy may represent an evolutionarily stable strategy, by which a small number of people who cheat on social contracts benefit in a society consisting mostly of non-sociopaths.[17] Mild depression may be an adaptive response to withdraw from, and re-evaluate, situations that have led to disadvantageous outcomes (the "analytical rumination hypothesis")[136] (see Evolutionary approaches to depression).
Some of these speculations have yet to be developed into fully testable hypotheses, and a great deal of research is required to confirm their validity.[139][140]
Antisocial and criminal behavior
Evolutionary psychology has been applied to explain criminal or otherwise immoral behavior as being adaptive or related to adaptive behaviors. Males are generally more aggressive than females, who are more selective of their partners because of the far greater effort they have to contribute to pregnancy and child-rearing. Males being more aggressive is hypothesized to stem from the more intense reproductive competition faced by them. Males of low status may be especially vulnerable to being childless. It may have been evolutionary advantageous to engage in highly risky and violently aggressive behavior to increase their status and therefore reproductive success. This may explain why males are generally involved in more crimes, and why low status and being unmarried is associated with criminality. Furthermore, competition over females is argued to have been particularly intensive in late adolescence and young adulthood, which is theorized to explain why crime rates are particularly high during this period.[141] Some sociologists have underlined differential exposure to androgens as the cause of these behaviors, notably Lee Ellis in his evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory.[142]
Many conflicts that result in harm and death involve status, reputation, and seemingly trivial insults.[141] Steven Pinker in his book The Blank Slate argues that in non-state societies without a police it was very important to have a credible deterrence against aggression. Therefore, it was important to be perceived as having a credible reputation for retaliation, resulting in humans to develop instincts for revenge as well as for protecting reputation ("honor"). Pinker argues that the development of the state and the police have dramatically reduced the level of violence compared to the ancestral environment. Whenever the state breaks down, which can be very locally such as in poor areas of a city, humans again organize in groups for protection and aggression and concepts such as violent revenge and protecting honor again become extremely important.[141]
Rape is theorized to be a reproductive strategy that facilitates the propagation of the rapist's progeny. Such a strategy may be adopted by men who otherwise are unlikely to be appealing to women and therefore cannot form legitimate relationships, or by high status men on socially vulnerable women who are unlikely to retaliate to increase their reproductive success even further.[143] The sociobiological theories of rape are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation, and objections to this theory are made on ethical, religious, political, as well as scientific grounds.
Psychology of religion
Adaptationist perspectives on religious belief suggest that, like all behavior, religious behaviors are a product of the human brain. As with all other organ functions, cognition's functional structure has been argued to have a genetic foundation, and is therefore subject to the effects of natural selection and sexual selection. Like other organs and tissues, this functional structure should be universally shared amongst humans and should have solved important problems of survival and reproduction in ancestral environments. However, evolutionary psychologists remain divided on whether religious belief is more likely a consequence of evolved psychological adaptations,[144] or a byproduct of other cognitive adaptations.[145]
Coalitional psychology
Coalitional psychology is an approach to explain political behaviors between different coalitions and the conditionality of these behaviors in evolutionary psychological perspective. This approach assumes that since human beings appeared on the earth, they have evolved to live in groups instead of living as individuals to achieve benefits such as more mating opportunities and increased status.[146] Human beings thus naturally think and act in a way that manages and negotiates group dynamics.
Coalitional psychology offers falsifiable ex ante prediction by positing five hypotheses on how these psychological adaptations operate:[147]
- Humans represent groups as a special category of individual, unstable and with a short shadow of the future
- Political entrepreneurs strategically manipulate the coalitional environment, often appealing to emotional devices such as "outrage" to inspire collective action.
- Relative gains dominate relations with enemies, whereas absolute gains characterize relations with allies.
- Coalitional size and male physical strength will positively predict individual support for aggressive foreign policies.
- Individuals with children, particularly women, will vary in adopting aggressive foreign policies than those without progeny.
Recepción y crítica
Critics of evolutionary psychology accuse it of promoting genetic determinism, panadaptationism (the idea that all behaviors and anatomical features are adaptations), unfalsifiable hypotheses, distal or ultimate explanations of behavior when proximate explanations are superior, and malevolent political or moral ideas.[148]
Ethical implications
Critics have argued that evolutionary psychology might be used to justify existing social hierarchies and reactionary policies.[149][150] It has also been suggested by critics that evolutionary psychologists' theories and interpretations of empirical data rely heavily on ideological assumptions about race and gender.[151]
In response to such criticism, evolutionary psychologists often caution against committing the naturalistic fallacy – the assumption that "what is natural" is necessarily a moral good.[150][152][page needed][153] However, their caution against committing the naturalistic fallacy has been criticized as means to stifle legitimate ethical discussions.[150]
Contradictions in models
Some criticisms of evolutionary psychology point at contradictions between different aspects of adaptive scenarios posited by evolutionary psychology. One example is the evolutionary psychology model of extended social groups selecting for modern human brains, a contradiction being that the synaptic function of modern human brains require high amounts of many specific essential nutrients so that such a transition to higher requirements of the same essential nutrients being shared by all individuals in a population would decrease the possibility of forming large groups due to bottleneck foods with rare essential nutrients capping group sizes. It is mentioned that some insects have societies with different ranks for each individual and that monkeys remain socially functioning after removal of most of the brain as additional arguments against big brains promoting social networking. The model of males as both providers and protectors is criticized for the impossibility of being in two places at once, the male cannot both protect his family at home and be out hunting at the same time. In the case of the claim that a provider male could buy protection service for his family from other males by bartering food that he had hunted, critics point at the fact that the most valuable food (the food that contained the rarest essential nutrients) would be different in different ecologies and as such vegetable in some geographical areas and animal in others, making it impossible for hunting styles relying on physical strength or risk taking to be universally of similar value in bartered food and instead making it inevitable that in some parts of Africa, food gathered with no need for major physical strength would be the most valuable to barter for protection. A contradiction between evolutionary psychology's claim of men needing to be more sexually visual than women for fast speed of assessing women's fertility than women needed to be able to assess the male's genes and its claim of male sexual jealousy guarding against infidelity is also pointed at, as it would be pointless for a male to be fast to assess female fertility if he needed to assess the risk of there being a jealous male mate and in that case his chances of defeating him before mating anyway (pointlessness of assessing one necessary condition faster than another necessary condition can possibly be assessed).[154][155]
Standard social science model
Evolutionary psychology has been entangled in the larger philosophical and social science controversies related to the debate on nature versus nurture. Evolutionary psychologists typically contrast evolutionary psychology with what they call the standard social science model (SSSM). They characterize the SSSM as the "blank slate", "relativist", "social constructionist", and "cultural determinist" perspective that they say dominated the social sciences throughout the 20th century and assumed that the mind was shaped almost entirely by culture.[152]
Critics have argued that evolutionary psychologists created a false dichotomy between their own view and the caricature of the SSSM.[156][157][158] Other critics regard the SSSM as a rhetorical device or a straw man[153][156][159] and suggest that the scientists whom evolutionary psychologists associate with the SSSM did not believe that the mind was a blank state devoid of any natural predispositions.[153]
Reductionism and determinism
Some critics view evolutionary psychology as a form of genetic reductionism and genetic determinism,[160][161] a common critique being that evolutionary psychology does not address the complexity of individual development and experience and fails to explain the influence of genes on behavior in individual cases.[44] Evolutionary psychologists respond that they are working within a nature-nurture interactionist framework that acknowledges that many psychological adaptations are facultative (sensitive to environmental variations during individual development). The discipline is generally not focused on proximate analyses of behavior, but rather its focus is on the study of distal/ultimate causality (the evolution of psychological adaptations). The field of behavioral genetics is focused on the study of the proximate influence of genes on behavior.[162]
Testability of hypotheses
A frequent critique of the discipline is that the hypotheses of evolutionary psychology are frequently arbitrary and difficult or impossible to adequately test, thus questioning its status as an actual scientific discipline, for example because many current traits probably evolved to serve different functions than they do now.[6][163] Thus because there are a potentially infinite number of alternative explanations for why a trait evolved, critics contend that it is impossible to determine the exact explanation.[164] While evolutionary psychology hypotheses are difficult to test, evolutionary psychologists assert that it is not impossible.[165] Part of the critique of the scientific base of evolutionary psychology includes a critique of the concept of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA). Some critics have argued that researchers know so little about the environment in which Homo sapiens evolved that explaining specific traits as an adaption to that environment becomes highly speculative.[166] Evolutionary psychologists respond that they do know many things about this environment, including the facts that present day humans' ancestors were hunter-gatherers, that they generally lived in small tribes, etc.[167] Edward Hagen argues that the human past environments were not radically different in the same sense as the Carboniferous or Jurassic periods and that the animal and plant taxa of the era were similar to those of the modern world, as was the geology and ecology. Hagen argues that few would deny that other organs evolved in the EEA (for example, lungs evolving in an oxygen rich atmopshere) yet critics question whether or not the brain's EEA is truly knowable, which he argues constitutes selective scepticism. Hagen also argues that most evolutionary psychology research is based on the fact that females can get pregnant and males cannot, which Hagen observes was also true in the EEA.[168][169]
John Alcock describes this as the "No Time Machine Argument", as critics are arguing that since it is not possible to travel back in time to the EEA, then it cannot be determined what was going on there and thus what was adaptive. Alcock argues that present day evidence allows researchers to be reasonably confident about the conditions of the EEA and that the fact that so many human behaviours are adaptive in the current environment is evidence that the ancestral environment of humans had much in common with the present one, as these behaviours would have evolved in the ancestral environment. Thus Alcock concludes that researchers can make predictions on the adaptive value of traits.[170] Similarly, Dominic Murphy argues that alternative explanations cannot just be forwarded but instead need their own evidence and predictions - if one explanation makes predictions that the others cannot, it is reasonable to have confidence in that explanation. In addition, Murphy argues that other historical sciences also make predictions about modern phenomena to come up with explanations about past phenomena, for example cosmologists look for evidence for what we would expect to see in the modern day if the Big Bang was true, while geologists make predictions about modern phenomena to determine if an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Murphy argues that if other historical disciplines can conduct tests without a time machine, then the onus is on the critics to show why evolutionary psychology is untestable if other historical disciplines are not, as "methods should be judged across the board, not singled out for ridicule in one context."[164]
Modularity of mind
Evolutionary psychologists generally presume that, like the body, the mind is made up of many evolved modular adaptations,[171] although there is some disagreement within the discipline regarding the degree of general plasticity, or "generality," of some modules.[162] It has been suggested that modularity evolves because, compared to non-modular networks, it would have conferred an advantage in terms of fitness[172] and because connection costs are lower.[173]
In contrast, some academics argue that it is unnecessary to posit the existence of highly domain specific modules, and, suggest that the neural anatomy of the brain supports a model based on more domain general faculties and processes.[174][175] Moreover, empirical support for the domain-specific theory stems almost entirely from performance on variations of the Wason selection task which is extremely limited in scope as it only tests one subtype of deductive reasoning.[176][177]
Cultural rather than genetic development of cognitive tools
Cecilia Heyes has argued that the picture presented by some evolutionary psychology of the human mind as a collection of cognitive instincts – organs of thought shaped by genetic evolution over very long time periods[178][19] – does not fit research results. She posits instead that humans have cognitive gadgets – "special-purpose organs of thought" built in the course of development through social interaction. Similar criticisms are articulated by Subrena E. Smith of the University of New Hampshire.[179][180][181]
Response by evolutionary psychologists
Evolutionary psychologists have addressed many of their critics (see, for example, books by Segerstråle (2000), Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond,[182] Barkow (2005), Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists,[183] and Alcock (2001), The Triumph of Sociobiology[184]). Among their rebuttals are that some criticisms are straw men, are based on an incorrect nature versus nurture dichotomy, are based on misunderstandings of the discipline, etc.[162][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191] Robert Kurzban suggested that "...critics of the field, when they err, are not slightly missing the mark. Their confusion is deep and profound. It's not like they are marksmen who can't quite hit the center of the target; they're holding the gun backwards."[192]
Ver también
- Affective neuroscience
- Behavioural genetics
- Biocultural evolution
- Biosocial criminology
- Collective unconscious
- Cognitive neuroscience
- Cultural neuroscience
- Darwinian Happiness
- Darwinian literary studies
- Deep social mind
- Dunbar's number
- Evolution of the brain
- List of evolutionary psychologists
- Evolutionary origin of religions
- Evolutionary psychiatry
- Evolutionary psychology and culture
- Molecular evolution
- Primate cognition
- Hominid intelligence
- Human ethology
- Great ape language
- Chimpanzee intelligence
- Cooperative eye hypothesis
- Id, ego, and superego
- Intersubjectivity
- Mirror neuron
- Noogenesis
- Origin of language
- Origin of speech
- Ovulatory shift hypothesis
- Primate empathy
- Shadow (psychology)
- Simulation theory of empathy
- Theory of mind
- Neuroethology
- Paleolithic diet
- Paleolithic lifestyle
- r/K selection theory
- Social neuroscience
- Sociobiology
- Universal Darwinism
Notas
- ^ Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2010). Psychology. Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
- ^ Confer et al. 2010; Buss, 2005; Durrant & Ellis, 2003; Pinker, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides, 2005
- ^ a b c d e f Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (13 January 1997). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer". Center for Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved 22 July 2016.
- ^ Duntley and Buss 2008
- ^ Carmen, R.A., et al. (2013). Evolution Integrated Across All Islands of the Human Behavioral Archipelago: All Psychology as Evolutionary Psychology. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 5, pp. 108–26. ISSN 1944-1932 PDF
- ^ a b c d e f g Schacter et al. 2007, pp. 26–27
- ^ The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Edited by Robin Dunbar and Louise Barret, Oxford University Press, 2007
- ^ The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005
- ^ Rose, Hilary (2000). Alas, Poor Darwin : Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. Harmony; 1 Amer ed edition (10 October 2000). ISBN 978-0-609-60513-4.
- ^ Lancaster, Roger (2003). The Trouble with Nature: Sex in Science and Popular Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520236202.
- ^ Tooby & Cosmides 2005, p. 5
- ^ Buss, David M. "Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of The Mind" 5th edition. pages 28-29.
- ^ Buss, David. "Evolutionary Theories in Psychology". NOBA Textbook series. DEF Publishers. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
- ^ Chiappe, Dan; MacDonald, Kevin (2005). "The Evolution of Domain-General Mechanisms in Intelligence and Learning". The Journal of General Psychology. 132 (1): 5–40. doi:10.3200/GENP.132.1.5-40. PMID 15685958. S2CID 6194752. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
- ^ Nesse, R.M. (2000). Tingergen's Four Questions Organized. Read online.
- ^ a b c Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 1–24.
- ^ a b c d e "Buss Lab – Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas". Retrieved 10 August 2016.
- ^ a b "I can't believe it's evolutionary psychology!". 7 March 2016.
- ^ "The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1973". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 28 July 2007.
- ^ Schacter (10 December 2010). Psychology 2nd Ed. Worth Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
- ^ Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2011). Psychology (2 ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. p. 26.
- ^ Sterelny, Kim. 2009. In Ruse, Michael & Travis, Joseph (eds) Wilson, Edward O. (Foreword) Evolution: The First Four Billion Years. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. ISBN 978-0-674-03175-3. p. 314.
- ^ a b Trivers, R. L. (1971). "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 46 (1): 35–57. doi:10.1086/406755. JSTOR 2822435. S2CID 19027999.
- ^ Wilson, Edward O. 1975.Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. ISBN 0-674-00089-7 p. 4.
- ^ Wilson, Edward O. 1978. On Human Nature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma. p. x.
- ^ Buller, David J. Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. MIT press, 2006, p.8
- ^ Laland, Kevin N. and Gillian R. Brown. 2002. Sense & Nonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior. Oxford University Press, Oxford. pp. 287–319.
- ^ a b c d e Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 25–56.
- ^ a b See also "Environment of evolutionary adaptation," a variation of the term used in Economics, e.g., in Rubin, Paul H (2003). "Folk economics". Southern Economic Journal. 70 (1): 157–71. doi:10.2307/1061637. JSTOR 1061637.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Wright 1995
- ^ Buss, David (2015). Evolutionary psychology : the new science of the mind. Boca Raton, FL: Psychology Press, an imprint of Taylor and Francis. ISBN 9781317345725. OCLC 1082202213.
- ^ Wright, Robert. "The Moral Animal: Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology". Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ Hunt, Lynn (2014). "The Self and Its History". American Historical Review. 119 (5): 1576–86. doi:10.1093/ahr/119.5.1576. quote p 1576.
- ^ Hunt, "The Self and Its History." p. 1578.
- ^ Buss et al. 1998
- ^ Pinker, Steven. (1994) The Language Instinct
- ^ George C Williams, Adaptation and Natural Selection. p. 4.
- ^ a b Buss, D. M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology.
- ^ Brown, Donald E. (1991) Human Universals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- ^ Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 6.
- ^ Pinker 2002
- ^ Barkow et al. 1992
- ^ a b "instinct." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 18 February 2011. [2].
- ^ Bowlby, John (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
- ^ Symons, Donald (1992). "On the use and misuse of Darwinism in the study of human behavior". The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press. pp. 137–59. ISBN 978-0-19-510107-2.
- ^ Narvaez et al. 2013.
- ^ Narvaez et al. 2012.
- ^ CDC pdf
- ^ Ohman, A.; Mineka, S. (2001). "Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning" (PDF). Psychological Review. 108 (3): 483–522. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483. PMID 11488376. Retrieved 16 June 2008.
- ^ Pinker, Steve (1999). "How the Mind Works". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. WW Norton. 882 (1): 386–89. Bibcode:1999NYASA.882..119P. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb08538.x. PMID 10415890. S2CID 222083447.
- ^ Hagen, E.H.; Hammerstein, P. (2006). "Game theory and human evolution: a critique of some recent interpretations of experimental games". Theoretical Population Biology. 69 (3): 339–48. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2005.09.005. PMID 16458945.
- ^ Barrett, Deirdre. Waistland: The R/Evolutionary Science Behind Our Weight and Fitness Crisis (2007). New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 31–51.
- ^ Barrett, Deirdre. Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010
- ^ Hagen, E.; Hammerstein, P. (2006). "Game theory and human evolution: A critique of some recent interpretations of experimental games". Theoretical Population Biology. 69 (3): 339–48. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2005.09.005. PMID 16458945.
- ^ Van Vugt, Mark & Ahuja, Anjana. Naturally Selected: The Evolutionary Science of Leadership (2011). New York: Harper Business.
- ^ Van Vugt, Mark; Ronay, Richard (2014). "The Evolutionary Psychology of Leadership". Organizational Psychology Review. 4: 74–95. doi:10.1177/2041386613493635. S2CID 145773713.
- ^ Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary psychology. Chapter 2. Boston: Pearson/A and B.
- ^ Jacobson, N.C. (2016). Current Evolutionary Adaptiveness of Psychiatric Disorders: Fertility Rates, Parent-Child Relationship Quality, and Psychiatric Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology
- ^ Buss, David (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. ISBN 978-0-205-48338-9.
- ^ Eldakar, Omar Tonsi; Wilson, David Sloan; O'Gorman., Rick (2006). "Emotions and actions associated with altruistic helping and punishment" (PDF). Evolutionary Psychology. 4: 274–86. doi:10.1177/147470490600400123. S2CID 53991283. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
- ^ Eldakar, Omar Tonsi; Wilson, David Sloan (2008). "Selfishness as second-order altruism". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 105 (19): 6982–86. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105.6982E. doi:10.1073/pnas.0712173105. PMC 2383986. PMID 18448681.
- ^ Lima, Francisco W.S.; Hadzibeganovic, Tarik; Stauffer., Dietrich (2009). "Evolution of ethnocentrism on undirected and directed Barabási-Albert networks". Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications. 388 (24): 4999–5004. arXiv:0905.2672. Bibcode:2009PhyA..388.4999L. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2009.08.029. S2CID 18233740.
- ^ Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind
- ^ * Nichols, S.; Grantham, T. (2000). "Adaptive Complexity and Phenomenal Consciousness" (PDF). Philosophy of Science. 67 (4): 648–70. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.515.9722. doi:10.1086/392859. JSTOR 188711. S2CID 16484193. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 August 2017. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
- ^ Freeman and Herron. Evolutionary Analysis. 2007. Pearson Education, NJ.
- ^ Eccles, J. C. (1992). "Evolution of consciousness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (16): 7320–24. Bibcode:1992PNAS...89.7320E. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.16.7320. JSTOR 2360081. PMC 49701. PMID 1502142.
- ^ Peters, Frederic "Consciousness as Recursive, Spatiotemporal Self-Location"
- ^ Baars, Bernard J. A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness. 1993. Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b c d e Gaulin and McBurney 2003 p. 101–21.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 81–101.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 8.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 121–42.
- ^ Belke, T. W.; Garland Jr, T. (2007). "A brief opportunity to run does not function as a reinforcer for mice selected for high daily wheel-running rates". Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 88 (2): 199–213. doi:10.1901/jeab.2007.62-06. PMC 1986434. PMID 17970415.
- ^ Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 7.
- ^ a b Gaulin and McBurney 2003 Chapter 9.
- ^ Mealey, Linda (2010). "The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 18 (3): 523–41. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00039595.
- ^ Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel. NY: Pantheon.
- ^ Bouchard, T. J. (2004). "Genetic influence on human psychological traits. A survey" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 13 (4): 148–51. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x. S2CID 17398272. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
- ^ Pinker, S.; Bloom, P. (1990). "Natural language and natural selection". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 13 (4): 707–27. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.116.4044. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00081061.
- ^ Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press p. 259
- ^ a b c d e Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2008). Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 10.
- ^ Diller, K. C. and R. L. Cann 2009. Evidence against a genetic-based revolution in language 50,000 years ago. In R. Botha and C. Knight (eds), The Cradle of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–49.
- ^ Workman & Reader 2008:277 "There are a number of hypotheses suggesting that language evolved to fulfil a social function such as social grooming (to bind large groups together), the making of social contracts (to enable monogamy and male provisioning) and the use of language to impress potential mates. While each of these hypotheses has its merits, each is still highly speculative and requires more evidence from different areas of research (such as linguistics and anthropology)."
- ^ Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press p. 267
- ^ W. Tecumseh Fitch (2010) The Evolution of Language. Cambridge University Press pp. 65–66
- ^ Deacon, Terrence W. (1997) The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. W.W. Norton & Co
- ^ Workman, Lance and Will Reader (2004) Evolutionary psychology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press p. 277
- ^ Wilson, G.D. Love and Instinct. London: Temple Smith, 1981.
- ^ Buss 1994
- ^ Buss & Barnes 1986
- ^ Li, N. P.; Bailey, J. M.; Kenrick, D. T.; Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). "The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (6): 947–55. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.319.1700. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947. PMID 12051582. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 16 July 2008.
- ^ Schmitt and Buss 2001
- ^ Buss 1988.
- ^ Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss (2005) Universal dimensions of human mate preferences; Personality and Individual Differences 39
- ^ Buss, David M. (2008). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston, MA: Omegatype Typography, Inc. p. iv. ISBN 978-0-205-48338-9.
- ^ Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
- ^ a b Bateman, A. J. (1948). "Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila". Heredity. 2 (Pt. 3): 349–821. doi:10.1038/hdy.1948.21. PMID 18103134.
- ^ Buss, D. M.; Schmitt, D. P. (1993). "Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating". Psychological Review. 100 (2): 204–32. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204. PMID 8483982.
- ^ Buss, D. M. (1989). "Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56 (5): 735–47. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.319.3950. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.735. PMID 2724067.
- ^ Browne, Anthony; editor, health (2 September 2000). "Women are promiscuous, naturally". Retrieved 10 August 2016 – via The Guardian.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
- ^ Buss 1989
- ^ Buss et al. 1992
- ^ Kalat, J. W. (2013). Biological Psychology (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781111831004.
- ^ Haselton, M. G.; Miller, G. F. (2006). "Women's fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence" (PDF). Human Nature. 17 (1): 50–73. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.411.6385. doi:10.1007/s12110-006-1020-0. PMID 26181345. S2CID 6625639.
- ^ Gangestad, S. W.; Simpson, J. A.; Cousins, A. J.; Garver-Apgar, C. E.; Christensen, P. N. (2004). "Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle" (PDF). Psychological Science. 15 (3): 203–07. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.371.3266. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x. PMID 15016293. S2CID 9820539.
- ^ Wilcox, A. J.; Dunson, D. B.; Weinberg, C. R.; Trussell, J.; Baird, D. D. (2001). "Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: Providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives". Contraception. 63 (4): 211–15. doi:10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00191-3. PMID 11376648.
- ^ Miller, G. F. (2000b) The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Anchor Books: New York.
- ^ Daly, Matin, and Margo I. Wilson. (1999)
- ^ Daly & Wilson 1998
- ^ "Evolutionary Psychology – Inclusive Fitness". Retrieved 10 August 2016.
- ^ Dawkins, Richard, "The Extended Phenotype", Oxford University Press 1982 (Chapter 9)
- ^ West, Stuart A.; El Mouden, Claire; Gardner, Andy (2011). "Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans" (PDF). Evolution and Human Behavior. 32 (4): 231–62. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.188.3318. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.08.001. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2017. Retrieved 25 October 2017.
- ^ Villinger, J. (2012). "Social discrimination by quantitative assessment of immunogenetic similarity". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 279 (1746): 4368–4374. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1279. PMC 3479794. PMID 22951741.
- ^ Lieberman, D.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (February 2007). "The architecture of human kin detection". Nature. 445 (7129): 727–31. Bibcode:2007Natur.445..727L. doi:10.1038/nature05510. PMC 3581061. PMID 17301784.
- ^ a b Buss, D.M. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology. Monterey: Brooks-Cole.
- ^ a b Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. NY: Prentice Hall
- ^ Workman & Reader (2008), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- ^ Nowak, MA; Sigmund, K (1998). "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring". Nature. 393 (6685): 573–77. Bibcode:1998Natur.393..573N. doi:10.1038/31225. PMID 9634232. S2CID 4395576.
- ^ Fowler, James H. (22 September 2005). "Human cooperation: Second-order free-riding problem solved?". Nature. 437 (7058): E8, discussion E8–9. Bibcode:2005Natur.437E...8F. doi:10.1038/nature04201. PMID 16177738. S2CID 4425399.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary Psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 978-0-13-111529-3, Chapter 14, pp. 323–52.
- ^ Bowles, S (2009). "Did Warfare among Ancestral Hunter-Gatherer Groups Affect the Evolution of Human Social Behaviors". Science. 324 (5932): 1293–98. Bibcode:2009Sci...324.1293B. doi:10.1126/science.1168112. PMID 19498163. S2CID 33816122.
- ^ Gintis, H. (2000). "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 206 (2): 169–79. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.335.7226. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111. PMID 10966755.
- ^ Henrich, J.; Chudek, M. (2012). "Understanding the research program". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 35 (1): 29–30. doi:10.1017/S0140525X11001397. PMID 22289319. S2CID 39959479.
- ^ a b Tooby, J.; Cosmides, L. (1989). "Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part I. Theoretical considerations". Ethology and Sociobiology. 10 (1–3): 29–49. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(89)90012-5.
- ^ Santrock, W. John (2005). A Topical Approach to Life-Span Development (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p. 62.
- ^ Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th Edition, Vol. 2, pp. 761–96). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- ^ Schaller, M., Simpson, J. A., & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.) (2006). Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
- ^ Van Vugt, Mark; Schaller, Mark (2008). "Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An introduction". Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 12: 1–6. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.12.1.1.
- ^ Van Vugt, Mark & Kameda, Tatsuya. Evolution and Groups. In J. Levine Group Processes Chapter 12 (2012). New York: Psychology Press.
- ^ "Humans Evolved 'Game Face' As Plea for Help, Study Suggests". Retrieved 10 August 2016.
- ^ Nesse, R; Williams, George C. (1996). Why We Get Sick. NY: Vintage. (adaptationist perspective to both physiological and psychological dysfunctions)
- ^ Workman & Reader (2008), Evolutionary Psychology, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
- ^ Cosmides, L.; Tooby, J. (1999). "Toward an evolutionary taxonomy of treatable conditions". Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 108 (3): 453–64. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.453. PMID 10466269.
- ^ a b Andrews, P. W.; Thomson, J. A. (July 2009). "The bright side of being blue: Depression as an adaptation for analyzing complex problems". Psychol Rev. 116 (3): 620–654. doi:10.1037/a0016242. PMC 2734449. PMID 19618990.
- ^ Raison, C.L, Miller, A. N. (2012). The evolutionary significance of depression in Pathogen Host Defense (PATHOS-D) Molecular Psychiatry 1–23. PDF.
- ^ a b c Gaulin and McBurney 2003 pp. 239–56.
- ^ O'Connell, H (2004). "Evolutionary theory in psychiatry and psychology". Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine. 21 (1): 37. doi:10.1017/s0790966700008193. PMID 30308732.
- ^ Rose, S. (2001). "Revisiting evolutionary psychology and psychiatry". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 179 (6): 558–59. doi:10.1192/bjp.179.6.558-b. PMID 11731363.
- ^ a b c Aurelio José Figueredo, Paul Robert Gladden, Zachary Hohman. The evolutionary psychology of criminal behaviour. In Roberts, S. C. (2011). Roberts, S. Craig (ed.). Applied Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001. ISBN 9780199586073.
- ^ Ellis, Lee (2005). "A Theory Explaining Biological Correlates of Criminality". European Journal of Criminology. 2 (3): 287–315. doi:10.1177/1477370805054098. ISSN 1477-3708. S2CID 53587552.
- ^ Hagen, Edward H. "Evolutionary Psychology FAQ". anth.ucsb.edu. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
- ^ Sosis, R.; Alcorta, C. (2003). "Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: the evolution of religious behavior". Evolutionary Anthropology. 12 (6): 264–74. doi:10.1002/evan.10120. S2CID 443130.
- ^ Lienard, P.; Boyer, P. (2006). "Whence collective rituals? A cultural selection model of ritualized behavior". American Anthropologist. 108 (4): 824–27. doi:10.1525/aa.2006.108.4.814.
- ^ Lopez, Anthony C.; McDermott, Rose; Bang Petersen, Michael (2011). "States in Mind: Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and International Politics". International Security. 36 (2): 61–66. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00056. S2CID 57562816.
- ^ Lopez, Anthony C.; McDermott, Rose; Bang Petersen, Michael (2011). "States in Mind: Evolution, Coalitional Psychology, and International Politics". International Security. 36 (2): 66–82. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00056. S2CID 57562816.
- ^ Kurzban, Robert. Alas poor evolutionary psychology. The Human Nature Review 2002 Volume 2: 99–109 (14 March ). Retrieved 14 July 2013.
- ^ Rose, Hilary; Rose, Steven (2000). "Introduction". Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments against Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Harmony Books. pp. 1–13. ISBN 978-0-609-60513-4.
- ^ a b c Wilson, David Sloan; Dietrich, Eric; Clark, Anne B. (2003). "On the inappropriate use of the naturalistic fallacy in evolutionary psychology" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy. 18 (5): 669–81. doi:10.1023/A:1026380825208. S2CID 30891026. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
- ^ Caporael, Linnda R.; Brewer, Marilynn B. (1991). "The Quest for Human Nature: Social and Scientific Issues in Evolutionary Psychology". Journal of Social Issues. 47 (3): 1–9. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1991.tb01819.x.
- ^ a b Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate. NY: Penguin
- ^ a b c Levy, Neil (2004). "Evolutionary Psychology, Human Universals, and the Standard Social Science Model". Biology and Philosophy. 19 (3): 459–72. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.90.9290. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036111.64561.63. S2CID 10126372.
- ^ WE Frankenhuis Environmental unpredictability, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2016 - Springer
- ^ Douglas T Kenrick, VIadas Griskevicius, Omar Mahmoud The rational animal: How evolution made us smarter than we think, 2016
- ^ a b Richardson, Robert C. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology As Maladapted Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-262-18260-7.
- ^ Wallace, Brendan (2010). Getting Darwin Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won't Work. Exeter: Imprint Academic. p. 136. ISBN 978-1-84540-207-5.
- ^ Solomon, Sheldon; et al. (2004). "Human Awareness of Mortality and the Evolution of Culture". In Schaller, Mark; Crandall, Christian S (eds.). The Psychological Foundations of Culture. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-8058-3839-8.
- ^ Sampson, Geoffrey (2009). The "Language Instinct" Debate: Revised Edition. London: Continuum. pp. 134–45. ISBN 978-0-8264-7384-4.
- ^ Maiers, Wolfgang (2003). "The Bogus Claim of Evolutionary Psychology". In Stephenson, Niamh (ed.). Theoretical Psychology: Critical Contributions. Concord, Ont.: Captus University Publications. pp. 426–35. ISBN 978-1-55322-055-8.
- ^ Plotkin, Henry. 2004 Evolutionary thought in Psychology: A Brief History. Blackwell. p. 150.
- ^ a b c Confer, J. C.; Easton, J. A.; Fleischman, D. S.; Goetz, C. D.; Lewis, D. M. G.; Perilloux, C.; Buss, D. M. (2010). "Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations" (PDF). American Psychologist. 65 (2): 110–26. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.601.8691. doi:10.1037/a0018413. PMID 20141266.
- ^ Ryle, Anthony (2005). "The Relevance of Evolutionary Psychology for Psychotherapy". British Journal of Psychotherapy. 21 (3): 375–88. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0118.2005.tb00225.x.
- ^ a b Murphy, Dominic. "Adaptationism and psychological explanation." In Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 161-184. Springer, Boston, MA, 2003.
- ^ "Testing ideas about the evolutionary origins of psychological phenomena is indeed a challenging task, but not an impossible one" (Buss et al. 1998; Pinker, 1997b).
- ^ Plotkin, Henry. 2004 Evolutionary thought in Psychology: A Brief History. Blackwell. p. 149.
- ^ The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), David M. Buss, Chapter 1, pp. 5–67, Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides
- ^ Hagen, Edward H. Invariant world, invariant mind. Evolutionary psychology and its critics. (2014).
- ^ Hagen, Edward H. Controversial issues in evolutionary psychology. The handbook of evolutionary psychology (2005): 145-173.
- ^ Maryanski, A., Machalek, R. and Turner, J.H., 2015. Handbook on evolution and society: Toward an evolutionary social science. Routledge. pp.161-163
- ^ Kurzban, Robert (2011). Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind. NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691146744.
- ^ Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (1992). "Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange". The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 163–228.
- ^ Clune, Jeff; Mouret, Jean-Baptiste; Lipson, Hod (2013). "The evolutionary origins of modularity". Proceedings of the Royal Society. 280 (1755): 20122863. arXiv:1207.2743. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.2863. PMC 3574393. PMID 23363632.
- ^ Panksepp, Jaak; Panksepp, Jules B. (2000). "The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology" (PDF). Evolution and Cognition. 6 (2): 108–31. Retrieved 15 May 2012.
- ^ Buller, David J.; Hardcastle, Valerie Gray (2005). "Modularity". In Buller, David J. (ed.). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology And The Persistent Quest For Human Nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 127–201. ISBN 978-0-262-02579-9.
- ^ Davies, Paul Sheldon; Fetzer, James H.; Foster, Thomas R. (1995). "Logical reasoning and domain specificity". Biology and Philosophy. 10 (1): 1–37. doi:10.1007/BF00851985. S2CID 83429932.
- ^ O'Brien, David; Manfrinati, Angela (2010). "The Mental Logic Theory of Conditional Propositions". In Oaksford, Mike; Chater, Nick (eds.). Cognition and Conditionals: Probability and Logic in Human Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 39–54. ISBN 978-0-19-923329-8.
- ^ Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (13 January 1997). "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer". cep.ucsb.edu.
- ^ Smith, Subrena (15 January 2020). "Why Evolutionary Psychology (Probably) Isn't Possible". This View of Life. Retrieved 7 February 2020.
- ^ Smith, Subrena (2020). "Is Evolutionary Psychology Possible?". Biological Theory. 15: 39–49. doi:10.1007/s13752-019-00336-4. S2CID 213564464 – via Springer.
- ^ "Subrena E Smith, University of New Hampshire Faculty Profile". University of New Hampshire Faculty Profile. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
- ^ Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850505-1.
- ^ Jerome H. Barkow, (2005), Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- ^ a b Alcock, John (2001). The Triumph of Sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-516335-3
- ^ Segerstråle, Ullica Christina Olofsdotter (2000). Defenders of the truth : the battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850505-1.
- ^ Barkow, Jerome (Ed.). (2006) Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513002-7
- ^ Tooby, J., Cosmides, L. & Barrett, H. C. (2005). Resolving the debate on innate ideas: Learnability constraints and the evolved interpenetration of motivational and conceptual functions. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. & Stich, S. (Eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Content. NY: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Controversies surrounding evolutionary psychology by Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- ^ The Never-Ending Misconceptions About Evolutionary Psychology: Persistent Falsehoods About Evolutionary Psychology by Gad Saad, Psychology Today blog.
- ^ Geher, G. (2006). Evolutionary psychology is not evil! … and here's why … Psihologijske Teme (Psychological Topics); Special Issue on Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 181–202. "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 May 2008. Retrieved 9 May 2008.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ What Anti-Evolutionary Psychologists are Really Worried About by John Johnson, Psychology Today blog.
- ^ Kurzban, R. (2013). This One Goes to Eleven, PZ Myers, and Other Punch Lines. Evolutionary Psychology.
Referencias
- Barkow, Jerome H. (2006). Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-513002-7.
- Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Bowlby, John (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
- Buss, D. M.; Barnes, M. (1986). "Preferences in human mate selection" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (3): 559–70. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.
- Buss, D. M. (1988). "From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates" (PDF). Ethology and Sociobiology. 9 (5): 291–317. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(88)90010-6. hdl:2027.42/27156.
- Buss, D. M. (1989). "Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures" (PDF). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12: 1–49. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992.
- Buss, D. M.; Larsen, R. J.; Westen, D.; Semmelroth, J. (1992). "Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology" (PDF). Psychological Science. 3 (4): 251–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x. S2CID 27388562.
- Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
- Buss, David M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind. Boston: Pearson/A and B. ISBN 978-0-205-37071-9.
- Buss, David M.; Haselton, Martie G.; Shackelford, Todd K.; Bleske, April L.; Wakefield, Jerome C. (1998). "Adaptations, Exaptations, and Spandrels". American Psychologist. 53 (5): 533–48. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.387.5882. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.5.533. PMID 9612136. Retrieved 29 August 2011.
- Clarke, Murray (2004). Reconstructing reason and representation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-03322-0.
- Confer, Easton, Fleischman, Goetz, Lewis, Perilloux & Buss Evolutionary Psychology, American Psychologist, 2010.
- Duntley, J.D.; Buss, D.M. (2008). "Evolutionary psychology is a metatheory for psychology" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 19: 30–34. doi:10.1080/10478400701774105. S2CID 12267555.
- Durrant, R., & Ellis, B.J. (2003). Evolutionary Psychology. In M. Gallagher & R.J. Nelson (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology, Volume Three: Biological Psychology (pp. 1–33). New York: Wiley & Sons.
- Evan, Dylan (2000). Introducing Evolutionary Psychology. Lanham, MD: Totem Books USA. ISBN 978-1-84046-043-8.
- Gaulin, Steven J. C. and Donald H. McBurney. Evolutionary psychology. Prentice Hall. 2003. ISBN 978-0-13-111529-3
- Hunt, Lynn (2014). "The Self and Its History". American Historical Review. 119 (5): 1576–86. doi:10.1093/ahr/119.5.1576.
- Joyce, Richard (2006). The Evolution of Morality (Life and Mind: Philosophical Issues in Biology and Psychology). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-10112-7.
- Miller, Geoffrey P. (2000). The mating mind: how sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday. ISBN 978-0-385-49516-5.
- Narvaez, D; Wang, L; Gleason, T; Cheng, Y; Lefever, J; Deng, L (2012). "The Evolved Developmental Niche and sociomoral outcomes in Chinese three-year-olds". European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 10 (2): 106–127. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.761606. S2CID 143327355.
- Narvaez, D; Gleason, T; Wang, L; Brooks, J; Lefever, J; Cheng, Y (2013). "The Evolved Development Niche: Longitudinal effects of caregiving practices on early childhood psychosocial development". Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 28 (4): 759–773. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.07.003.
- Nesse, R.M. (2000). Tingergen's Four Questions Organized.
- Nesse, R; Williams, George C. (1996). Why We Get Sick. NY: Vintage.
- Pinker, Steven (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-04535-2.
- Pinker, Steven (2002). The blank slate: the modern denial of human nature. New York, N.Y: Viking. ISBN 978-0-670-03151-1.
- Richards, Janet C. (2000). Human nature after Darwin: a philosophical introduction. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-21243-4.
- Ryan, Christopher; Jethá, Cacilda (2010). Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. New York, NY: Harper. ISBN 9780062002938. OCLC 668224740.
- Santrock, John W. (2005). The Topical Approach to Life-Span Development(3rd ed.). New York, N.Y: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-322626-2.
- Schacter, Daniel L, Daniel Wegner and Daniel Gilbert. 2007. Psychology. Worth Publishers. ISBN 0-7167-5215-8ISBN 9780716752158.
- Schmitt, D. P.; Buss, D. M. (2001). "Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing relationships" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (6): 894–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894. PMID 11414373.
- Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Full text
- Wilson, Edward Osborne ("E. O.") (1975). Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674816213.
- Wright, Robert C. M. (1995). The moral animal: evolutionary psychology and everyday life. New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-76399-4.
Otras lecturas
- Buss, D. M. (1995). "Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 6: 1–30. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1.
- Confer, J.C.; Easton, J.A.; Fleischman, D.S.; Goetz, C. D.; Lewis, D.M.G.; Perilloux, C.; Buss, D. M. (2010). "Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations" (PDF). American Psychologist. 65 (2): 110–26. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.601.8691. doi:10.1037/a0018413. PMID 20141266.
- Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (2008). "Evolutionary Psychology". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Evolution Psychology. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 158–61. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n99. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
- Heylighen F. (2012). "Evolutionary Psychology", in: A. Michalos (ed.): Encyclopedia of Quality of Life Research (Springer, Berlin).
- Kennair, L. E. O. (2002). "Evolutionary psychology: An emerging integrative perspective within the science and practice of psychology". Human Nature Review. 2: 17–61.
- Medicus, G. (2005). "Evolutionary Theory of Human Sciences". pp. 9, 10, 11. Retrieved 8 September 2009.
- Gerhard Medicus (2015). Being Human – Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind. Berlin: VWBISBN 978-3-86135-584-7
- Oikkonen, Venla: Gender, Sexuality and Reproduction in Evolutionary Narratives. London: Routledge, 2013. ISBN 978-0-415-63599-8
enlaces externos
- PsychTable.org Collaborative effort to catalog human psychological adaptations
- Evolutionary Psychology at Curlie
- What Is Evolutionary Psychology? by Clinical Evolutionary Psychologist Dale Glaebach.
- Evolutionary Psychology – Approaches in Psychology
Academic societies
- Human Behavior and Evolution Society; international society dedicated to using evolutionary theory to study human nature
- The International Society for Human Ethology; promotes ethological perspectives on the study of humans worldwide
- European Human Behaviour and Evolution Association an interdisciplinary society that supports the activities of European researchers with an interest in evolutionary accounts of human cognition, behavior and society
- The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences; an international and interdisciplinary association of scholars, scientists, and policymakers concerned with evolutionary, genetic, and ecological knowledge and its bearing on political behavior, public policy and ethics.
- Society for Evolutionary Analysis in Law a scholarly association dedicated to fostering interdisciplinary exploration of issues at the intersection of law, biology, and evolutionary theory
- The New England Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology aims to foster research and education into the interdisciplinary nexus of cognitive science and evolutionary studies
- The NorthEastern Evolutionary Psychology Society; regional society dedicated to encouraging scholarship and dialogue on the topic of evolutionary psychology
- Feminist Evolutionary Psychology Society researchers that investigate the active role that females have had in human evolution
Journals
- Evolutionary Psychology – free access online scientific journal
- Evolution and Human Behavior – journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society
- Evolutionary Psychological Science - An international, interdisciplinary forum for original research papers that address evolved psychology. Spans social and life sciences, anthropology, philosophy, criminology, law and the humanities.
- Politics and the Life Sciences – an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal published by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
- Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective – advances the interdisciplinary investigation of the biological, social, and environmental factors that underlie human behavior. It focuses primarily on the functional unity in which these factors are continuously and mutually interactive. These include the evolutionary, biological, and sociological processes as they interact with human social behavior.
- Biological Theory: Integrating Development, Evolution and Cognition – devoted to theoretical advances in the fields of biology and cognition, with an emphasis on the conceptual integration afforded by evolutionary and developmental approaches.
- Evolutionary Anthropology
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences – interdisciplinary articles in psychology, neuroscience, behavioral biology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, linguistics and philosophy. About 30% of the articles have focused on evolutionary analyses of behavior.
- Evolution and Development – research relevant to interface of evolutionary and developmental biology
- The Evolutionary Review – Art, Science, and Culture
Videos
- Brief video clip from the "Evolution" PBS Series
- TED talk by Steven Pinker about his book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
- RSA talk by evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban on modularity of mind, based on his book Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite
- Richard Dawkins' lecture on natural selection and evolutionary psychology
- Evolutionary Psychology – Steven Pinker & Frans de Waal Audio recording
- Stone Age Minds: A conversation with evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby
- Margaret Mead and Samoa. Review of the nature versus nurture debate triggered by Mead's book "Coming of Age in Samoa."
- "Evolutionary Psychology", In Our Time, BBC Radio 4 discussion with Janet Radcliffe Richards, Nicholas Humphrey and Steven Rose (Nov. 2, 2000)