Lecture 9: evolutionary social psychology

Question 1

define evolution

Answer 1

change in inherited characteristics within a population over successive generations

Question 2

describe darwinian evolution (via natural selecion). 3 premises

Answer 2

1. individuals of a species show variation in traits
2. some of this variation is heritable
3. some traits provide benefits in terms of survival and reproductive success (adaption

Question 3

whats the consequence of natural selection?

Answer 3

individuals with greater chances of survival and reproductive success (due to positive adaptations) will leave more offspring, and those offspring will inherit their parent’s traits

= certain adaptive traits are selected for over the course of generations
= these adaptive traits increase in frequency in future generations = becoming widespread in the species

Question 4

AAAaaaAAAaaAAA

what is A?
= evolution via natural selection

Answer 4

an adaptation: a trait that has been selected for due to its impact on fitness

Question 5

define evolutionary psychology (EP)

what assumptions does it make? (1 main, 3 sub)

Answer 5

application of evolutionary theorising to understand human psychology and behaviour

mind is composed of collection of evolved psychological mechanisms

• adaptations
• domain specific
• designed to solve various specific recurrent problems faced by evolutionary ancestors
  e. g. disease avoidance, kin care

Question 6

what is the problem of altruism in light of EP?

Answer 6

if evolution tailors organisms to behave in ways that facilitate their own reproductive success, doesn’t this mean that organisms will be selfish?

Question 7

what is taking a ‘gene’s-eye view’?

Q= if you were a gene what would facilitate your reproduction?

Answer 7

• selfish genes vs selfish individuals
• > its about having selfish genes, not being a selfish individual (its evolutionary)

= if prosocial behaviour happens to increase the likelihood of one’s genetic material being passed = such behaviour will be selected for

Question 8

how is it possible that pro social behaviour might increase the chances that ones genetic material is passed onto future generations?

Answer 8

inclusive fitness

Question 9

define inclusive fitness

• direct (classical)
• indirect

-> why aren’t all kin equal?

Answer 9

Hamilton
-> capacity for genetic information to spread in the population

• genes can get their host organisms to reproduce = individual has offspring
• via increasing the classical fitness of others who also share ones genes i.e. kin, relatives = helping kin survive (we share genes with kin = increases them getting spread in the population)
• > we share different amount of genetic information with our kin = more likely to help those more closely related to us

Question 10

What did belding’s ground squirrels show?

how is this alturistic?

Answer 10

Sherman
-> alarm calls in response to predators
-> more likely to occur in the presence of sisters, aunts and nieces
(helping scaled as a function of genetic relatedness)

drawing attention to themselves (putting themselves in danger) to benefit others

Question 11

explain a human study consistent with the inclusive fitness account of evolution

Answer 11

LA women (Mcguire)

help more likely to be given and received among those who the participants was genetically related more strongly to (r=0.5)

Question 12

How do parents treat children?

Daly and Wilson study

Answer 12

genetic relatedness constrains negative behaviours

single largest predictor of child abuse/homicide = presence of a step-parent in the home
-> 40-100 x higher if theres a step parent compared to both genetic parents

Question 13

how do mum vs dad treat children?

Answer 13

although offspring are theoretically r=0.5 (half mum, half dad)

• paternity uncertainty
  > mothers more certain = nicer

Question 14

Explain Grandparental certainty

1. grandparent attitudes
2. grandchild attitudes

Answer 14

Lahman

1. Maternal grandmother = doubly certain

paternal grandfather = doubly uncertain

daughter -> her mother’s father was investing MORE compared to father’s mum
= in theory each equally uncertain

= father’s mother might have a more certain investment outlet (e.g. a daughter with a child)

2. more warmth from maternal grandmothers relative to father’s father

Question 15

what are the challenged to evolutionary psychology? (4)

are they fair?

Answer 15

1. pan-adaptationism = EP think everything is an adaptation

not true

2. everything determined by gene (genetic determinism, no nurture)

no, they are actually interactionists genes + environment

3. implies things about adaptations are always morally good

not true, naturalistic fallacy

Question 16

what’s EPs value? (2)

Answer 16

• metatheory = organising framework for human behaviour
• function: not just how, but why
  = novel hypotheses

Question 17

define morality

whats the content of morality (overview)

Answer 17

code of conduct/set of rules pertaining to “right” or “wrong” held by a group or individual

psychological processes that drive moral judgement

Question 18

describe the moral/conventional distinction task (Turiel)

the different violations
(what were they asked?)

Answer 18

study on children

• > make judgements about rule violations
  1. hits
  2. pushes off swing
  3. boy wearing a dress to school
  4. talks out of turn

-> wrong? punishable?

what if teacher said its okay? (authority dependent)

it’s scope - temporally and geographically

Question 19

whats the signature moral response? (SMR)

found by?

in what context was the SMR given by children in an experiement?

Answer 19

• serious, wrong, bad
• punishable
• authority independent
• general in scope

Turiel

harm, welfare, justice and rights

Question 20

what did haid, kolle and dias do to challenge morality?

3 examples he gave participants

what did they find?

what did they conclude?

Answer 20

gave people rule violations that didn’t involve harm or injustice

e.g. clean toilet with american flag, eat family dog after being killed in car accident, sex with dead chicken

= wrong regardless of what an authority figure said at any time/place
-> authority independent, general in scope

morality can be more than harm/justice

Question 21

whats the three domain account of morality (shweder)

what kind of account is it?
what kind of account isn’t it?

Answer 21

1. autonomy = harm, violation of rights (what turiel concluded)
2. community (hierarchy) = fail to carry out duty
3. divinity (purity)= disrespect sacredness - sin, protection of soul/world

a descriptive account = observes what people make judgements on/how they do it

NOT normative - whether they should or shouldn’t

Question 22

what’s moral foundations theory (Haidt & Graham)
5 domains

-> what does each domain compare to in shweder’s account (autonomy, community or divinity)

Answer 22

1. harm/care = autonomy
2. fairness/reciprocity = autonomy
3. authority/respect = community
4. in-group/loyalty = community
5. purity/ sanctity = divinity

Question 23

how relevant to the 5 domains of moral judgements are liberals (democrats) to conservatives (republicans)?

Answer 23

liberal = harm and fairness to be more relevant

conservatives = in-group authority and purity to be more relevant

Question 24

what accounts for judgments of right and wrong? (whats in the moral black box (the mind)?)

Answer 24

(stimulus -> moral black box -> response)

is it reasoning or emotion/intuition?

Question 25

what is moral reasoning (haidt) what is moral intuition (haidt)

Answer 25

1. conscious mental activity. Intentional, effortful and controllable 2. without any conscious awareness. gut reaction, immediate, intuitive response. Largely dependent on emotion

Question 26

Moral dumbfounding study (haidt, koller & dias) 1. what happened 2. what was found?

Answer 26

1. brother and sister kiss - is this morally wrong? = yes - what is its impossible for them to have children? = yes why? = harms reputation what if this consequence didn't exist? = still wrong 2. participants defended the wrongness of this action even when reasons they gave were diffused this is called moral dumbfounding = reasoning processes not accessible

Question 27

Whats the social intuitionist model (SIM, haidt)

Answer 27

judging something to be wrong is a function of affect-laden (emotion) intuitions reasoning is a reaction - a post-hoc rationalisation stimulus -> intuition -> verbal judgement -> reasoning to justify intuition/judgement

Question 28

whats the dual-process model of moral judgement? (Greene) -> trolly problem 1. whats the utilitarian response 2. whats the deontological response what happens in the switch condition what happens in the footbridge condition?

Answer 28

1. controlled, effortful reasoning process 2. gut-reaction, emotions, intuitions switch no direct contact - less emotion = reasoning wins =utilitarian response overrides deontological (kill 1 person, save many = pull switch) footbridge direct contact - more emotion = emotional response wins = deontological response overides utilitarian (don't push man)

Question 29

what the deontological option based on? whats the utilitarian option based on?

Answer 29

do not kill innocence (emotion) greatest good for greatest number (reasoning)

Question 30

manipulating emotion Valdesolo and desteno study -> if negative emotion is reduced is a utilitarian response more likely to occur in the footbridge senario? explain study

Answer 30

1. condition 1 = watched funny show = more likely to say appropriate compared to control condition = experiencing positive emotion dampens the emotional adverseness = allows the utilitarian response to be delivered by controlled reasoning processes

Question 31

whats the moral dyad?

Answer 31

structure of a moral action agent does something to a recipient of an action (patient) Q - does the relationship between agent and patient make a difference to the moral judgement?

Question 32

what are relational models? name the 4 types what's the implication?

Answer 32

- used to describe human relationships in the context of moral judgements (relational models influence moral judgements) = for each relational model there is a moral value attached to it 1. communal sharing (CS) = unity 2. authority ranking (AR) = hierarchy 3. equality matching (EM) = equality 4. market pricing (MP) = proportionality the way we judge actions to be right/wrong depends on the relational context under which the action takes place

Question 33

Simpson, Laham and Fiske -> do people deliver different kinds of moral judgements in different relational contexts? main findings

Answer 33

e.g. siblings = CS = regulated by unity values LOYALTY siblings (CS) = judged to be more wrong if violated compared to an MP or AR relationship RESPECT student/professor (AR) = more wrong compared to CS relationship PURITY student/professor (AR) and customer/salesperson (MP) = more wrong = we deliver different kinds of moral judgements depending on the relational context

Question 34

what is the moral circle? give examples for things in the 1. center 2. border 3. outskirts what has happened to its expansion over time

Answer 34

imagine a target. things in the centre = more worthy of moral concern 1. baby 2. animal 3. rock greater expansion = more care and concern given to entities

Question 35

what does inclusion/exclusion discrepancy (IED) show? Yaniv and Schul (circling vs crossing: music festival experimental paradigm)

Answer 35

items have greater probability of being retained in the final choice under exclusion mindsets inclusion mindset = smaller choice list compared to exclusion

Question 36

(inclusion/exclusion discrepancy) IED and the moral circle Laham study 1. what was the study? 2. what did exclusion mindsets show = what did this account for? 3. what was concluded

Answer 36

1. 2 conditions a) cross - exclude items not deemed of moral consideration b) circle - include items deemed of moral consideration THEN -> asked about attitudes towards a range of out-groups = different races, religious beliefs 2. larger moral circles = accounted for a range of positive attitude towards out-groups 3. subtle manipulation can change what we deem morally considerable and expand our circle = which has consequences for additional judgements