Lecture 7 Flashcards
Which level of the 4 whys is exploring the psychological processes behind behaviour?
It’s the mechanistic explanation; the biological one which is in the proximate group. This is the primary focus for evolutionary psychologists.
Discuss Tooby and Cosmides’ viewpoint on natural selection and behaviour
They believe that natural selection doesn’t select for behaviour, it selects for the psychological mechanisms that produce behaviour. Therefore, it should select for mechanisms that are most efficient. They also believe that higher cognitive processes are modular as well as perceptual ones and that problem solving is hard wired and aided by shortcuts for specific problems. This follows the Swiss Army Knife model that specific areas have specific functions, for example, ToM which is innate and isn’t affected by experience. However, the issues with this viewpoint is that higher cognitive functions are extremely inefficient and prone to errors. Also, if nothing is affected by experience, then children couldn’t possibly learn everything they need to know.
Discuss Fodor’s viewpoint of modularity
This is a cognitive perspective that believes that perceptual processes are organised as modules. These modules are genetically influenced and hard-wired, they respond to specific stimuli with a specific outcome. It’s automatic and informationally encapsulated meaning it isn’t influenced by other modules, experiences or higher cognitive functions. The fact that they aren’t influenced by experience means that illusions can occur because even though we know it’s an illusion, we cannot stop our perception from viewing it that way. Fodor also believed that higher cognitive processes are slow and influenced by experience and are also not mandatory or modular. They’re domain general.
Discuss evidence in favour of modularity (not including clinical evidence)
There is evidence for a specific module for language; there are specific anatomical regions like the Broca and Wernicke's area and the capacity to acquire language is innate. Also, in double dissociation studies have supported it. Double dissociation studies involve testing one group with a normal brain but lesions in a specific area and another group with a damaged brain but the specific area is functioning correctly. The two groups should have opposite results. Additionally, Nisbett and Wilson found that we don't use higher cognitive processes to make decisions. We think we understand why we make choices but these explanations can contradict reality. For example, the participants had to pick their favourite pair of tights from a series of four identical tights. Almost all participants picked the one on the right even though it was identical and the tights were swapped around, they then denied that it was because of the positioning of the tights even though the results strongly suggest this. Decisions are fast and hard wired biologically (genetically influenced). Also, we can detect cheaters significantly quicker when it is presented to us in a social scenario (e.g. Wason selection task) showing that cheat detection is a module as it is domain specific. Some people have contradicted this view by arguing that it's easier because we have had past experiences with the social scenario (opposite of modularity) but the same results were found in an abstract social scenario.
Discuss clinical evidence for modularity
There are specific clinical disorders that are associated with domain specific problems. For example, achromatopsia is total colour blindness but only one area of the brain is damaged, showing that colour perception is domain specific and is not involved with other modules. There are many other examples of this such as jargon aphasia. Also, when their are impairments in facial recognition one can develop prosopagnosia.
Does evolution favour domain specific or domain general psychological mechanisms?
Both can be explained by evolution but domain general seems to have more benefits. Evolution could favour domain specific as it improves the efficiency of the brain and it’s quick so one can respond to situations quickly. However, it doesn’t account for phenotypic plasticity which there is a vast amount of evidence for and therefore, this idea doesn’t believe that we can learn and adapt to situations. Additionally, brain scans now show that many areas are involved with one function and when there is damage, surrounding areas can take over the function lost. There are also too many modules for it to seem possible.
In terms of domain general, evolution would favour it because it’s flexible, influenced by learning and applicable to various situations. It accounts for brain plasticity taking over new functions and understands that there’s communication between modules. For example, this explains the McGurk effect as our visual perception is combining the knowledge of our auditory perception to assume what someone is saying. Our vision is affecting what we hear.
Discuss evidence against modularity
Brain plasticity, McGurk effect.
Fodor, the creator of modularity doesn’t even believe that higher cognitive functions are modular.
Sperber argues that there is some truth in modularity except instead they are organised as concepts which are then built up through experience. These concepts are hierarchical and we can develop concepts from a concept. It also accounts for cultural influence.
The developmental perspective argues that modules are innate predispositions and domain specific modules become more flexible through development as they’re made accessible to most domains (aka representational redescription).
Some argue that face recognition is domain specific but not innate as the skill becomes more refined through development. However, there is evidence that face recognition is not domain specific but recognition expertise is, as the same activations occur when bird fans see a particular bird. Therefore, face recognition is meant to be the best candidate for modularity but even this is unknown and unproven.
Describe Wu’s study
They argued that vision isn’t infortmationally encapsulated because we have visual spatial constancy even though our eyes are always rapidly moving. This is because our higher cognitive functions are processing the information to stop our vision from being shaky rather than the visual system just relaying exactly what we see.
Discuss Sperry’s study
Sperry did a classic study with split brain patients and found that in one visual field the participants could name an object but couldn’t know what it was via tactile information (from the left hand) and vice versa in the opposite visual field. This shows that visual and tactile processing are modular as there are specific brain regions for a specific function (domain specific) and there are no areas for tactile processing in one hemisphere for example, agreeing with Fodor’s idea of perceptual processing being modular.
Discuss Johanson’s study
They found that after patients had a stroke there were altered activation patterns showing the reorganisation of the brain and functions. This shows that the brain is domain general and plasticity can occur. It is the principle process of recovery after a stroke.
Discuss Ungerleider’s study
They found that during the development of motor behaviours like learning sequential finger movements, there was reorganisation within the primary motor cortex. Subsequently, there are rapid changes in the cerebellum and striatum. This shows that experience is involved with motor development which contradicts Tooby’s idea of strict modularity as previous experiences guide the module and learning is involved.
Discuss Siegal’s study
They claim that there is evidence for modularity in the higher cognitive function of ToM supporting Tooby and Cosmides. They found that although many areas are involved, they are just functional components like language regions. There is a core, domain specific brain region involved with ToM; the amygdala. People who have ToM impairments have abnormalities in the core system.
