Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, Exercises of Psychology

Download Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind and more Exercises Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!   1   EVOLUTIONARY  PSYCHOLOGY   The  New  Science  of  the  Mind     Fourth  Edition     David  M.  Buss     Pearson  Education  Inc.,  Boston  2012     This  work  contains  Buss’  original  chapter  outline  followed  by  my  summaries  for   each  chapter.       PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY     CHAPTER ONE: THE SCIENTIFIC MOVEMENTS LEADING TO  EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY  -­‐  1   Landmarks  in  the  History  of  Evolutionary  Thinking  -­3   Evolution  before  Darwin   Darwin’s  Theory  of  Natural  Selection   Darwin’s  Theory  of  Sexual  Selection   The  Role  of  Natural  Selection  and  the  Sexual  Selection  in  Evolutionary  Theory   The  Modern  Synthesis:  Genes  and  Particulate  Inheritance   The  Ethology  Movement   The  Inclusive  Fitness  Revolution   Clarifying  Adaptation  and  Natural  Selection   Triver’s  Seminal  Theories   The  Sociobiology  Controversy     Common  Misunderstandings  about  Evolutionary  Theory  -­  17   Misunderstanding  1:  Human  behavior  is  genetically  determined   Misunderstanding  2:  If  It’s  Evolutionary,  We  Can’t  Change  it   Misunderstanding  3:Current  Mechanisms  are  optimally  designed     Milestones  in  the  Origins  of  Modern  Humans  -­19   Landmarks  in  the  Field  of  Psychology  -­23     Freud’s  Psychoanalytic  Theory   William  James  and  the  Psychology  of  Instincts   The  Rise  of  Behaviorism   The  Astonishing  Discoveries  of  Cultural  Variability   The  Garcia  Effect,  Prepared  Fears,  and  the  Decline  of  Radical  Behaviorism   Peering  into  the  Black  Box:  The  Cognitive  Revolution     2           SUMMARY     32  -­‐  Darwin’s  natural  selection  has  three  ingredients:  Variation,  Inheritance,  and   Selection.    “Natural  selection  is  defined  as  changes  over  time  due  to  the  differential   reproductive  success  of  inherited  variation.”   Natural  selection  “united  all  living  forms  into  one  grand  tree  of  descent  and   simultaneously  revealed  the  place  of  humans  in  the  grand  scheme  of  life.”     Darwin  also  coined  sexual  selection.  Intrasexual  is  between  same  sex.    Intersexual   between  male  and  female.       Konrad  Lorenz  and  Nikolaas  Tinbergen  started  ethology,  which  sought  to  place   animal  behavior  within  an  evolutionary  context  by  focusing  on  the  origins  and   functions  of  behavior.     In  1964  William  D.  Hamilton  said  that  selection  involves  not  just  classical  fitness   (the  direct  production  of  offspring)  but  also  inclusive  fitness,  which  includes  the   effects  of  actions  on  genetic  relatives.  He  took  a  “genes  eye”  view.     33  –  In  1966  George  Williams  published  Adaptation  and  Natural  Selection.    It  1)  Led   to  the  downfall  of  group  selection.    2)  Promoted  the  Hamiltonian  revolution  and  3)   provided  rigorous  criteria  for  identifying  adaptations.    In  the  1970s  Robert  Trivers   offered  additions:  reciprocal  altruism,  parental  investment  and  parent-­‐offspring   conflict.       In  1975  –  Edward  O.  Wilson  published  “Sociobiology:  A  New  Synthesis.”    It’s  last   chapter  focusing  on  humans  made  it  controversial.    But,  it  does  not  say  we  are   genetic  robots  or  optimally  designed.       Milestones  in  human  development:   Mammals  originated  200  million  years  ago.   Primates  began  85  million  years  ago.   We  became  bipedal  4.4  million  years  ago.   2.5  million  years  ago  came  stone  tools  (1.6  perhaps  fire).   Our  most  rapid  brain  expansion  happened  between  500  and  100,000  years  ago.         Why?    Tool  making?    Tool  use?    Communication?    Cooperative  hunting?  Climate?     Social  competition?   200,000  years  ago  Neanderthals  dominated  Europe.         “Molecular  genetic  studies  show  that  there  has  been  an  acceleration  of  human   adaptive  evolution  over  the  past  40,000  years,  and  especially  during  the  past  10,000   years  (the  Holocene).”     5   Current  mechanisms  like  fear  of  heights,  a  taste  for  fatty  foods,  and  a  preference  for   savanna  –  like  landscapes  provide  a  window  into  past  adaptations.               PART TWO: PROBLEMS OF SURVIVAL   CHAPTER THREE: COMPATING THE HOSTILE FORCES OF NATURE: HUMAN SURVIVAL PROBLEMS   Food  Acquisition  and  Selection  –  74     Social  and  Cultural  Aspects  of  Food   Food  Preferences   Disgust:  The  Disease  –  Avoidance  Hypothesis   Sickness  in  Pregnant  Women:  The  Embryo  Protection  Hypothesis   Fire  and  Cooking   Why  Humans  Like  Spices:  The  Antimicrobial  Hypothesis   Why  Humans  Like  to  Drink  Alcohol:  An  Evolutionary  Hangover?   The  Hunting  Hypothesis   The  Gathering  Hypothesis   Comparing  the  Hunting  and  Gathering  Hypotheses   Adaption’s  to  Gathering  and  Hunting:  Sex  Differences  in  Specific  Spatial  Abilities.     Finding  a  Place  to  Live:  Shelter  and  Landscape  Preferences  88   The  Savanna  Hypothesis     Combating  Predators  and  Other  Environmental  Dangers:  Fears,  Phobias,   Anxieties,  and  “Adaptive  Biases.”  90     Most  Common  Human  Fears   Children's  Anti-­‐predator  Adaptations   Darwinian  Medicine:  Combating  Disease     Why  Do  People  Die?  98   The  Theory  of  Senescence   The  Puzzle  of  Suicide   Homicide.       SUMMARY  102   Food  shortages,  toxins,  predators,  parasites,  diseases  and  extreme  climates  are   hostile  forces  of  nature.    We  have  evolved  to  deal  with  these.  We  must  find  food  and   then  know  which  to  consume,  which  to  avoid.           6   Among  our  adaptations  are  preferences  for  calorically  rich  foods;  mechaisms  to   avoid  bad  food,  like  the  emotion  of  disgust.    Mechanisms  for  getting  rid  of  bad  food,   such  as  gaging,  spitting,  vomiting,  coughing,  sneezing,  diarrhea,  and  pregnancy   sickness.       People  also  use  spices  that  kill  off  food-­‐borne  bacteria.    This  spreads  through   cultural  transmission.    More  spices  are  used  in  climates  that  are  hotter  where  food   spoils  more.       It  seems  that  males  hunted  and  females  gathered.    Sex  differences  in  spatial  ability   reflect  this.    Women  outperform  men  on  tasks  involving  spatial  location  memory.     This  would  help  find  tubers,  fruits,  nuts  and  so  reliably.        Men  do  better  with  3/D   rotation,  navigation  and  map  reading.         We  prefer  places  where  one  can  see  without  being  seen,  mimicking  savannas.       We  have  survival  enhancing  inborn  fears.    Snakes,  spiders,  heights,  and  strangers.     These  appear  across  cultures  and  especially  in  certain  times  of  development.         We  have  at  least  six  behavioral  responses  to  fear:  Freeze,  flight,  fight,  submit,  fright,   and  faint.      [Is  this  article  fodder?  What  are  we  currently  doing?    Fainting.]    Fainting   is  a  way  to  survive  at  the  last  minute  (playing  dead,  not  a  threat).    This  would  mean   that  women  and  children  would  be  more  likely  to  faint.    Evidence  supports  this.       We  also  pick  out  snakes,  and  spiders  in  an  array  of  non-­‐dangerous  items.       We  are  also  tuned  to  hear  dangerous  items.    We  also  overestimate  heights  from  on   top  and  under  from  below.  Children  understand  death  from  predators  by  3.         Raising  temperature  is  a  natural  reaction  to  burn  out  predators.    Aspirin  prolongs   illness.       Why  do  we  die?    When  people  are  young  selection  works  strongly.    When  we  are   older,  not  so  much.    An  event  that  happens  right  before  you  die  has  no  impact  on   your  reproductive  success.         Suicide  is  also  puzzling.    It  occurs  amongst  those  with  poor  reproductive  prospects,   who  are  in  poor  health,  who  have  poor  financial  prospects,  who  perceive  themselves   to  be  burdens  on  their  kin.        Evidence  points  to  the  possibility  that  humans  have   evolved  context-­‐sensitive  psychological  mechanisms  to  evaluate  future  reproductive   potential  and  net  cost  to  genetic  kin.     Homicide  mortality  is  up  to  35%.    We’ll  look  at  this  in  later  chapters.     Surviving  to  adulthood  gets  us  to  the  next  problem:  mating.       7           PART THREE: CHALLENGES OF SEX AND MATING CHAPTER FOUR: WOMEN’S LONG-TERM MATING STRATEGIES   Theoretical  Background  for  the  Evolution  of  Mate  Preferences  107   Parental  Investment  and  Sexual  Selection   Mate  Preferences  as  Evolved  Psychological  Mechanisms     The  Context  of  Women’s  Mate  Preferences  109   Preference  for  Economic  Resources   Preference  for  Good  Financial  Prospects   Preference  for  High  Social  Status   Preference  for  Somewhat  Older  Men   Preference  for  Ambition  and  Industriousness   Preference  for  Dependability  and  Stability   Preference  for  Height  and  Athletic  Prowess   Preference  for  Good  Health:  Symmetry  and  Masculinity   Love  and  Committment     Preference  for  Willingness  to  Invest  in  Children   Preference  for  Similarity   Additional  Mate  Preferences:  Kindness,  Humor,  Incest  Avoidance,  and  Voice     Context  Effects  on  Women’s  Mate  Preferences  128     Effects  of  Women’s  Personal  Resources  on  Mate  Preferences   The  Mere  Presence  of  Attractive  Others:  Mate  Copying   Effects  of  Temporal  Context  on  Women’s  Mate  Preferences   Effects  of  Women’s  Mate  Value  on  Mate  Preferences   Kinship  and  Stress   Kinship  and  Survival   Patterns  of  Inheritane  –  Who  Leaves  Wealth  to  Whom?   Investment  by  Grandparents   A  Broader  Perspective  on  the  Evolution  of  the  Family   The  Dark  Side  of  Families     SUMMARY  135     Ancestral  women  who  mated  indiscriminately  were  likely  to  have  been  less   reproductively  successful.    Long-­‐term  mates  bring  many  assets.    Selecting  one  with   assets  is  very  complex.        It  involves  preferences  that  correlate  with  assets.       10   Two  adaptive  problems  loom  large:   1) Identifying  women  of  high  fertility.    This  is  done  with  signals  of  youth  and   health:  clear  skin,  full  lips,  small  lower  jaw,  symmetrical  features,  white  teeth,   absence  of  sores  and  lesions,  facial  femininity,  facial  averageness,  and  a  small   ratio  of  waist  to  hip.      These  are  consistent  across  cultures.       Waist  Hip  Ratio  varies  depending  on  food  scarcity  as  well  as  the  distributions  in  the   local  culture.       2) Paternity  certainty.  Many  cultures  value  virginity  highly.    But,  this  is  not   universal.    More  importantly  is  to  look  for  fidelity.       Male  homosexuality  is  an  evolutionary  paradox.    The  kin  altruism  hypothesis  has   received  mixed  empirical  support.         Many  contexts  impact  males  mating  strategies.    1)  Getting  status  and  resources   improves  your  odds.    2)  Viewing  images  of  other  attractive  women  lowers  men’s   commitment  to  their  regular  partner.    3)  Getting  into  a  committed  relationship   reduces  your  testosterone  levels;  but  only  if  they  are  nmonogamously  oriented  and   do  not  desire  extra-­‐pair  sex.    4)    Interacting  with  attractive  women  increases   testosterone  and  risk  taking.    5)  Men’s  mate  preferences  shift  as  a  function  of  their   mating  budget.    On  a  limited  budget  men  place  more  importance  on  necessities,  such   as  attractiveness.    After  this  men    pay  attention  to  luxuries  such  as  personality  and   creativity.     Several  sources  confirm  mate  preferences  impact  action.      1)  Men  who  respond  to   personal  ads  do  more  to  women  who  claim  to  be  young  and  physically  attractive.    2)   Men  worldwide  marry  women  who  are  younger.    3)  Men  married  to  younger   women  have  higher  reproductive  success  rates.    4)  Men  attend  longer  to  –  and  have   problems  disengaging  –  from  looking  at  attractive  women.    5)  Men  interacting  with   attractive  women  lower  their  voices.    6)  Attractive  waitresses,  young,  large  breasts,   blonde,  receive  more  tips  from  men.    7)  Men  spend  more  money  on  engagement   rings  for  younger  brides.    8)  women  devote  more  of  their  time  to  their  physical   appearance  than  men  –  corresponding  to  what  men  want.    9)  Women  denigrate   their  rivals  by  putting  down  their  physical  appearance  and  calling  them   promiscuous  and  slutty.    This  makes  the  rivals  seem  less  attractive  as  mates.       CHAPTER SIX: SHORT-TERM SEXUAL STRATEGIES     Theories  of  Men’s  Short  –  Term  Mating  175   Adaptive  Benefits  for  Men  of  Short  –  Term  Mating   Potential  Costs  of  Short-­‐Term  Mating  for  Men   Adaptive  Problems  Men  Must  Solve  When  Pursuing  Short-­‐Term  Mating     Evidence  for  an  Evolved  Short-­Term  Mating  Psychology  177   Physiological  Evidence  for  Short-­‐Term  Mating     11   Psychological  Evidence  for  Short  –  Term  Mating   Behavioral  Evidence  of  Short-­‐  Term  Mating     Women’s  Short-­Term  Mating  187   Evidence  for  Women’s  Short-­‐Term  Mating   Hyopothesis  about  the  Adaptive  Benefits  to  Women  of  Short-­‐Term  Mating   Costs  to  Women  of  Short-­‐Term  Mating   Empirical  Tests  of  Hypothesized  Benefits  to  Women     Context  Effects  on  Short-­Term  Mating  195   Individual  Differences  in  Short-­‐Term  Mating   Other  Contexts  Likely  to  Affect  Short-­‐Term  Mating     SUMMARY     The   scientific   study   of   mating   has   focused   on   marriage.     But,   human   anatomy,   physiology,   and   psychology   betray   an   ancestral   past   filled  with   affairs   and   short-­‐ term  mating.    And,  perhaps  the  benefits  of  short  term  mating  for  men  have  blinded   scientists  to  such  behavior  in  women.       Via   short   term  mating,  men   can   inseminate  more  women.    Men   value   short-­‐term   mating  more  than  women.        Men  want  more  partners  and  a  shorter  time  prior  to  sex   in   relationships,   lower   their   standards   dramatically   when   pursuing   short-­‐term   mating   have   more   sexual   fantasies   and   more   involving   multiple   partners,   experience  more  regret  over  missed  opportunities,  have  a   larger  number  of  affairs   and  visit  prostitutes  more  often.       Though  some  might  doubt  it.    It  is  very  robust  and  widely  confirmed  across  cultures.       Mathematically,  however,  short-­‐term  requires  two.    Some  women  must  have  sought   short  term.     Physiologically  men’s  testicle  size,  sperm  competition  show  cheating.         There  are  5  classes  of  short  term  mating  benefits  to  women:  1)  Economic  resources,   genetic  benefits,  mate  switching  benefits,  short-­‐term  for  long-­‐term  goals.,  and  mate   manipulation   benefits.     These   and   sexy   son   genes   are   supported.     Status   enhancement   and   mate   manipulation   benefits   have   not   been   supported   by   the   evidence.         (197)  The  absence  of   a   father  while  growing  up  has  been   reliably   linked  with   the   pursuit  of  a  short-­‐term  mating  strategy.    This  is  both  in  men  and  women.    And,  both   are  likely  to  reach  puberty  earlier.    Childhood  sexual  abuse  is  associated  with  early   age  of  puberty  and  early  onset  of  sexual  activity.         12   Individual   women   differ   and   clues   show   which   ones   differ.     Women   show   more   eyebrow   flashes   and   glances,   dress   more   provocatively   during   ovulation;   are   perceived  to  be  somewhat   less  masculine   in  appearance,  and  are  attracted  to  men   who  have  particularly  masculine  faces  and  bodies.         Men   who   prioritize   short-­‐term   mating   look   to   attractiveness   more   than   those   seeking  long-­‐term  mates.    They  also  show  a  preference  for  women  with  a  low  WHR.       Contexts   impact   short   term   mating.   A   surplus   of   women   promotes   short-­‐term   mating  in  both  sexes.    Also,  mate  value  (one’s  value  to  the  opposite  sex).    Men  high  in   mate  value  are  more  likely  to  pursue  short  term  mating.    They  have  sex  at  a  younger   age  and  more  partners.         The  connection  between  women’s  mate  value  and  short-­‐term  is  more  mixed.    Some   show  no  relation  between  self-­‐perceived  mate  value  and  short  term.    Others  show   that  women  with  low  attractiveness  are  slightly  more  inclined.    Others  see  them  as   looser  too.         Finally,  those  high  on  extroversion  and  low  on  conscientiousness  are  more  inclined   to  short-­‐term  partnering.      Those  high  on  the  dark  triad  –  Narcissism,  psychopathy,   and  Machiavellianism  –  also  pursue  exploitative  short-­‐term  mating  strategies.           PART FOUR: CHALLENGES OF PARENTING AND KINSHIP CHAPTER SEVEN – PROBLEMS OF PARENTING Why  do  Mothers  Provide  More  Parental  Care  Than  Fathers?  206   The  Paternity  Uncertainty  Hypothesis   The  Mating  Opportunity  Costs  Hypothesis     An  Evolutionary  Perspective  on  Parental  Care  208   Genetic  Relatedness  to  Offspring   Offspring’s  Ability  to  Convert  Parental  Care  into  Reproductive  Success   Alternative  Uses  of  Resources  Available  for  Investment  in  Children     The  Theory  of  Parent  –  Offspring  Conflict  229   Mother  –  Offspring  Conflict  in  Utero   Mother-­‐Child  conflict  and  Sibling  Relatedness   Parent  Offspring  Conflict  over  Mating   Killing  Parents  and  the  Asymmetry  of  Valuing  Parents  and  Children     SUMMARY    234     Mechanisms  of  parental  care  have  been  studied  in  many  species.    The  big  puzzle  is   why  women  spend  more  time  on  this  than  men.    Two  hypothesis:     15   Families  are  found  in  only  about  3  percent  of  mammals.    So  why  do  they  exist?   Stephen  Emlen  says  they  exist  when  1)  There  is  a  scarcity  of  reproductive  vacancies   elsewhere  or  2)  when  there  are  distinct  benefits  of  staying  at  home,  such  as   enhancing  survival  –  giving  and  getting  aid.         People  discount  his  theory  on  several  basis,  including  that  people  help  non-­‐kin  too.         PART FIVE: PROBLEMS OF GROUP LIVING CHAPTER NINE – COOPERATIVE ALLIANCES   The  Evolution  of  Cooperation  268   The  problem  of  Altruism     A  Theory  of  Reciprocal  Altruism  269   Tit  for  Tat     Cooperation  among  Nonhumans  271   Strategies  for  Promoting  Cooperation   Food  Sharing  in  Vampire  Bats   Chimpanzee  Politics     Cooperation  and  Altruism  among  Humans  274   Social  Contract  Theory   Evidence  for  Cheater  –  Detection  Adaptions   Do  People  Remember  Cheaters?   The  Detection  of  Prospective  Altruists   Indirect  Reciprocity  Theory   Costly  Signal  Theory   The  Psychology  of  Friendship   Cooperative  Coalitions     SUMMARY  294     Altruistic  behavior  aids  others  at  an  expense  to  yourself.    This  goes  against   Hamilton.        One  solution  is  reciprocal  altruism.    The  biggest  danger  this  solution   encounters  is  that  of  cheaters.       To  test  this  Robert  Axelrod  did  his  tit-­‐for-­‐tat  competition.         We  see  such  cooperation  in  the  animal  world.     Vampire  bats  share  their  blood  with  “friends”  who  were  unsuccessful  on  any  given   night.    Later  others  reciprocate.    Chimpanzees  have  alliances.         16   Social  contract  theories  suggest  five  cognitive  capacities  to  solve  the  problem  of   cheaters.    1)  recognize  individuals;  2)  remember  mutual  history;  3)  communicate   one’s  values,  desires,  and  needs;  4)  recognize  those  of  others;  5)represent  the  cost   and  benefits  of  large  numbers  of  items  in  swaps.       Researchers  have  shown  cheating  detection  modules  in  the  mind.    We  better   compute  when  problems  are  put  in  terms  of  social  contracts.    We  are  especially   vigilant  against  those  who  take  without  contributing..    We  can  also,  studies  show,   detect  genuinely  altruistic  behavior;    We  choose  those  who  are  especially  motivated   to  cooperate  –  this  helps  us  avoid  cheaters.         In  addition  to  kin  altruism  and  reciprocal  altruism,  there  are  two  other  kinds:     indirect  reciprocity  and  costly  signaling.       With  indirect  altruism,  you  don’t  get  reciprocity  from  those  who  you  helped,  you  get   it  from  those  who  saw  you  help.        With  costly,  it  is  showing  that  you’re  rich  and  can   afford  to  help.    This  increases  your  status.         The  bankers  paradox  is  that  we  won’t  lend  money  to  those  who  need  it,  we  lend   money  to  people  with  good  credit  and  don’t  need  it.        One  solution  is  to  become   irreplaceable.    Then  friends  have  a  stake  in  our  welfare.    Having  conquered  nature,  it   is  now  hard  to  know  who  will  really  help  us  in  an  emergency;  not  being  able  to  spot   true  friends  can  be  a  cause  of  alienation.       In  opposite  sex  friendships,  men  look  for  short-­‐term  sex  and  women  protection.     Both  are  happy  to  get  info  about  the  opposite  sex.    The  cost  of  same-­‐sex  friendship  is   sexual  rivalry.    It  is  more  prevalent  among  male  friends.       We  also  have  dyadic,  groups  of  friends.  These  work  if  we  avoid  free  riders.    Punative   sentiments  help  facilitate  this.    Scientists  have  found  some  brain  regions  involved   when  people  punish  noncooperators  –  they  are  in  reward  centers.  People  enjoy   punishing  or  seeking  revenge  against  violators.       Punishing  can  be  altruistic.    It  costs  to  punish  when  others  don’t.    To  explain  this  we   may  need  to  invoke  “cultural  group  selection.”      Then  again  reputation  gains  may   explain  it.      This  explanation  vies  for  “strong  reciprocity”  among  a  whole  group   population.    Fehr  and  Henrich,  2003  go  for  this.    –  292     Cross-­‐cultural  studies  show  punishment  is  a  human  universal.    (291)    It  is  especially   harsh  toward  in-­‐group  members  who  have  failed  to  cooperate  when  they  could.             292  –  “Cultural  group  selection  describes  a  process  by  which  certain  culturally   transmitted  ideas,  beliefs,  or  values  spread  because  of  the  competitive  advantages   they  provide  to  the  social  groups  holding  them.”    “If  groups  competed  with  one   another  over  time,  and  the  most  successful  groups  enforced  group-­‐altruistic  norms,   then  cultural  group  selection  would  favor  groups  with  the  more  effective  norms.”       17   That  is  it  in  this  book,  followed  by  the  weak  assertion  that  this  would  cause  less   successful  groups  to  imitate  their  strategies  and  acquire  the  social  norms.       The  fact  that  being  ostracized  or  shunned  hurts  so  much  points  to  a  mechanism  that   creates  conformity.         302  –  Of  homicides  in  Chicago  between  1965  and  1980,  86%  were  committed  by   men.  This  is  close  to  what  we  see  cross  culturally.    [But  we  see  this  difference   between  races  in  the  US  and  don’t  attribute  it  to  genetics].         302  –  The  more  dimorphic  the  greater  the  variance  in  reproduction.      The  more   intense  the  polygyny,  the  greater  the  dimorphism  and  the  more  selection  favors   riskier  strategies  (including  intrasexual  competition)  within  the  sex.    Human  males   are  roughly  18  %  heavier  than  females.     More  polygyny  means  more  males  get  shut  out.    “This  leads  to  more  ferocious   competition  within  the  high-­‐variance  sex.    In  essence,  polygyny  selects  for  risky   strategies,  including  those  that  lead  to  violent  combat  with  rivals.”    [How  is   dimorphism  in  the  Middle  East?].     308  –  Young  men  must  fight  and  so  are  aggression  prone.  But,  they  do  it  with  an   audience  for  a  reputation.         309  –  Boys  have  a  surge  in  muscle  strength  from  puberty  to  their  mid-­‐twenties.       319  –  “Men  are  more  likely  than  women  to  form  strong  ingroup/outgroup   distinctions,  and  to  derogate  outgroup  members  as  being  animalistic,  diseased,  or   subhuman,  which  presumably  lowers  inhibitions  to  kill  them.”    “Men  compared  to   women,  show  a  particularly  strong  bias  against  outgroups,  especially  towards  male   outgroup  members.”     CHAPTER TEN – AGGRESSION AND WARFARE   Aggression  as  a  Solution  to  Adaptive  Problems  298   Co-­‐opt  the  Resources  of  Others   Defend  Against  Attack   Inflict  Costs  on  Intrasexual  Rivals   Negotiate  Status  and  Power  Hierarchies   Deter  Rivals  from  Future  Aggression   Deter  Long-­‐Term  Mates  from  Sexual  Infidelity   The  Context  –  Specificity  of  Aggression     Why  Are  Men  More  Violently  Aggressive  Than  Women?  302   The  Recalibration  Theory  of  Anger       20   Sex  Differences  in  the  Use  of  Mate-­‐Retention  Tactics   Contexts  Influencing  the  Intensity  of  Mate-­‐Retention  Tactics   Violence  toward  Partners     Conflict  over  Access  to  Resources  355   Causes  of  Resource  Inequality:  Women’s  Mate  Preferences  and  Men’s  Competitive   Tactics   Are  All  Men  United  to  Control  Women?     SUMMARY  357       Men  and  women  will  have  different  ways  to  promulgate  and  so  conflict.    One  will   stop  the  other  from  reaching  their  goals.    Women  long  –  term  mating,  men  short  – term  mating.    Anger,  distress,  and  jealousy  result.         358  Men  consistently  infer  more  sexual  intent  than  do  women.    They  see  smiles  as   come  ons.    2)  Men  sometimes  deceive  women  about  their  emotional  involvement   and  long  –  term  intentions.    This  can  be  viewed  via  “error  management  theory.”    It   costs  more  to  underestimate  sexual  interest  than  to  overestimate  it.    Women,  OTOH,   are  expected  to  be  skeptical  by  error  management  theory.     Sexual  harassment  at  the  workplace  goes  one  way.    The  victims  are  usually  young,   attractive  and  single.    Women  are  more  upset  by  this  than  men.    Women  are   especially  upset  if  the  harasser  is  of  low  status.         Men  tend  to  underestimate  how  much  women  are  upset  by  unwanted  touching  and   harassment.         A  controversial  question  is  whether  or  not  men  have  evolved  a  rape  adaption.    Is  it   an  actual  strategy  or  just  a  byproduct  of  wanting  short  term  sex  and  using  violence   to  get  what  you  want?    Evidence  is  not  conclusive.       We  have  found  that  rapists  start  having  sex  earlier,  have  a  wider  variety  of  sexual   experiences,  show  penile  arousal  to  stories  of  rape,  and  tend  to  commit  other  crimes   as  well.         The  theory  that  failures  in  the  mating  world  rape  is  not  supported.  Men  who  rape   their  long-­‐term  partners  tend  to  do  it  due  to  suspected  infidelity.    This  is  especially   true  if  they  view  themselves  as  of  higher  mate  value  than  their  spouses.         Women  have,  people  think  now,  anti-­‐rape  adaptions.    Special  friends  for  protection,   a  preference  for  large,  dominant  mates,  fear  of  situations  that  place  them  at  risk  of   rape,  and  pain  following  sexual  violence.         Men’s  jealousy  focuses  on  sexual  infidelity;  women’s  on  emotional  infidelity.    These   sex  differences  are  robust  across  cultures.    MRIs  have  been  used  to  test  this.         21     The  psychology  of  jealousy  results  in  behaviors  that  deter  infidelity  or   abandonment.    This  goes  from  vigilance  to  violence.    Men  do  it  more  when  the   women  is  young;  women  when  the  man  has  status.       There  is  also  a  conflict  over  resources,  which  men  tend  to  control  –  this  being  their   key  to  success.    Thus  patriarchy  is  natural.    Men,  are  NOT  in  coalition  to  keep  women   from  resources,  they  are  primarily  in  competition  with  other  men.         CHAPTER TWELVE – STATUS, PRESTIGE, AND SOCIAL DOMINANCE   The  Emergence  of  Dominance  Hierarchies  362   Dominance  and  Status  in  Nonhuman  Animals  363   Evolutionary  Theories  of  Dominance,  Prestige,  and  Status  365   An  Evolutionary  Theory  of  Sex  Differences  in  Status  Striving     Dominance  Theory   Social  Attention-­‐Holding  Theory   Determinants  of  Dominance   Facial  Dominance   Self-­‐Esteem  as  a  Status-­‐Tracking  Mechanism   Strategies  of  Submissiveness     SUMMARY  387     Testosterone  is  an  androgen.    Men  have  7  times  the  amount  of  T  of  women.         381  –  T  levels  of  athletes  rise  just  prior  to  theirmatches,  perhaps  making  individuals   more  willing  to  take  risks.    “    “Winners  in  the  matches  show  a  rise  in  T  for  up  to  two   hours  after  the  match,  whereas  the  losers  show  a  decline  in  T.    Mood  changes   accompany  T  changes.”  Elevated.         “The  effects  of  winning  and  losing  extend  even  to  sports  fans  who  do  not  participate   in  the  competition.”     Status  and  social  dominance  are  observed  widely  through  the  animal  world  from   crayfish  to  humans.    A  dominance  hierarchy  refers  to  some  individuals  getting  more   access  to  resources  than  others.  Size  is  a  key  to  dominance  in  some  species,  but  not   primate  species.  Competence  knowledge,  generous  displays,  and  social  skills  do  it   for  us.         Status  striving  is  greater  in  men  than  women.    The  more  polygynous  the  mating   system  the  more  it  has  paid  in  reproductive  success  for  men  to  take  risks  in  getting   status.    Across  cultures  it  means  more  women.       22   Males  form  hierarchies  as  early  as  the  age  of  three.    Women  tend  to  be  more   egalitarian.    Women  express  dominance  via  pro-­‐social  actions  (Settling  disputes)   men  in  personal  gain  and  ascension  (getting  others  to  do  menial  tasks  for  them).     When  given  a  choice,  dominant  women  tend  to  appoint  men  as  leaders,  whereas   dominant  males  take  the  leadership  role  for  themselves.       Denise  Cummins’  dominance  theory  suggests  domain  specific  strategies  for   navigating  dominance  norms:  Understanding  permissions  (who  mates  with  whom),   obligations  (who  must  support  whom  in  contests),  and  prohibitions  (who  cannot   join  the  war  dance).        These  strategies  are  postulated  to  be  separate  from  other   areas  of  reasoning.    And,  indeed,  1)  3-­‐year-­‐olds  understand  hierarchy.  2)  people   remember  the  faces  of  cheaters  more  if  they  are  low  in  status.  And  3)  when  asked  to   assume  high  status,  people  look  for  rules  violations  more  in  low  status  folks.       Whereas  dominance  theory  emphasizes  reasoning  mechanisms,  SAHP  theory  looks   at  emotional  mechanisms.    Elation  after  a  rise  in  status,  social  anxiety  when  it  could   be  lost;  shame  and  rage  as  a  consequence  of  status  loss,  envy  to  motivate   acquisition;  and  depression  to  facilitate  submission.         Dominance  can  be  seen  in  an  upright  posture,  low  voice,  direct  eye  contact,  fast-­‐ paced  stride,  a  strong  jaw  and  physical  size.  The  hormone  testosterone  and   seratonin  have  been  linked  with  dominance.    Testosterone  seems  to  rise  and  fall   with  winning  and  losing.         Self  esteem  is  also  thought  to  indicate  status.    It  motivates  us  to  curry  favor  or  repair   social  relations  when  respect  from  others  wanes,  2)  to  guide  us  to  making   appropriate  decisions  about  whom  to  challenge  and  to  whom  to  submit  3)  to  track   our  desirability  in  the  mating  market.     People  can  also  deceive  down  to  avoid  confrontation  and  derogate  tall  poppies.     More  study  is  needed.       385  –  “The  evolutionary  logic  is  that  situations  have  commonly  existed  in  which  it   was  adaptive  to  convincingly  portray  oneself  as  subordinate  and  hence   nonthreatening.    Those  who  are  real  threats  risk  incurring  the  wrath  of  the   dominant,  who  might  seek  to  vanquish  anyone  who  is  perceived  as  a  rival.    By  truly   acting  subordinate,  one  avoids  incurring  this  wrath,  continuing  to  occupy  a  position   within  the  group.    It  also  permits  one  to  bide  one’s  time  until  a  more  opportune   moment  arises  in  which  to  seek  dominant  status.”         25   encoded,  retrieved  from  memory,  and  transmitted  to  other  individuals.    “Nothing   about  culture  makes  sense  except  in  light  of  evolution.””     426  -­‐  There  are  two  theses  as  to  why  art  exists.    1)  The  display  hypothesis.    It  says   that  culturist  “is  an  emergent  phenomenon  arising  from  sexual  competition  among   vast  numbers  of  individuals  pursuing  different  mating  strategies  in  different  mating   arenas.”    It  is  a  courtship  strategy  for  getting  women.         ART   This  accounts  for  several  facts:    1)  Men  historically  have  produced  more  art  and   music,  and  literature  across  a  wide  variety  of  cultures.    2)  It  also  accounts  for  most   art  and  music  being  created  by  men  in  early  adulthood.         However,  it  cannot  explain:  1)  The  content  of  the  cultural  products.       Why  are   some  songs  popular  and  others  not?    Why  is  Shakespeare  so  revered?    2)  Why  do  so   many  people  spend  so  much  time  enjoying  art  in  solitary  situations?    They  read  lit   where  no  one  is  watching.     The  second  approach  is  Pinker’s.    It  comes  from  the  mechanisms  of  the  mind  that   “let  people  take  pleasure  in  shapes  and  colors  and  sounds  and  jokes  and  stories  and   myths.”    Ripe  fruit  and  fertile  females,  for  example.    Just  like  drugs  juice  our  rewards   systems.       427  –  Music  impacts  language,  auditory  separation  mechanisms,  emotional  calls,   habitat  selection  (thunder)  motor  control.       428  –  We  see  this  in  literature  too.    Popular  films  contain  intrasexual  competition,   mate  choice,  romance,  and  life  threatening  hostile  forces  of  nature.    In  a  book  we  get   to  see  landscapes,  hobnob  with  important  people,  fall  in  love  with  beautiful  men  and   women,  protect  loved  ones,  attain  impossible  goals  and  defeat  wicked  enemies.”           One  analysis  of  36  plot  lines    showed  most  were  defined  by  4  themes:  Love,  sex,   personal  threat  or  threat  to  the  antagonist’s  kin.    (Carroll,  2005)       Bibliography     Fehr,  E.,  &  Henrich    On  strong  reciprocity.     Fielden  J.  Lutter,  C.,  &  Dabbs,  J.  (1994)  Basking  in  glory;  Testosterone  changes  in   World  Cup  soccer  fans.    Unpublished  manuscript,  Psychology  Dept,  Georgia  State   University     Goldstein,  M.  A.  (2002)  The  biological  roots  of  heat-­‐of-­‐passion  crimes  and  honor   killings,  Politics  and  the  Life  Sciences,  21,  28  –  37.         26   Hagen,  E.  H.  (2005)  Controversial  issues  in  evolutionary  psychology.    In  D.  M.  Buss   (Ed.),  The  Handbook  of  Evolutionary  psychology.       Tooby,  J.,  Cosmides,  L.,  (2010).  Groups  in  mind:  The  coalitional  roots  of  war  and   morality.    In  H.  Hogh-­‐Olesen  (Ed.),  Human  morality  and  sociality:  Evolutionary  and   comparative  perspectives.  New  York:  Palgrave  MacMillan.