Читать книгу Social Psychology - Daniel W. Barrett - Страница 40

The early American social psychologist McDougall, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, placed natural instincts at the forefront of his explanations for social behavior. McDougall’s instinct-based approach quickly fell out of favor as a primary cause of human behavior and was replaced with a more externally focused, behaviorist perspective (Jackson, 1988). As a result, for several decades little attention was devoted to evolutionary or biological influences on social behavior. However, since the 1990s social psychologists have come a long way toward remedying this oversight, and today the study of biological influences on social psychological processes has been integrated into the mainstream of our science (Duntley & Buss, 2008; Kenrick & Cohen, 2012).

Figure 1.3 Different Levels of Explanation for Social Behavior

Social psychologists have recognized how traits handed down to us by our ancestors continue to influence social functioning. This evolutionary perspective derives from Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which, in a nutshell, states that genes that tend to increase the chances of survival of their carrier are more likely to be passed on to a new generation (Darwin, 1859/1994). In other words, these genes—what are called adaptive genes—endow their animal or plant carrier with advantages that make them more likely to survive and reproduce in comparison to those that do not have them. Darwin recognized that there is natural variation in the genes of the members of a species, and that as a result, some members are better adapted to their environments than are others (see photo). The fortunate members have a higher probability of producing healthy offspring and, over time, their adaptive genes and corresponding traits become more common in the population. Eventually, virtually all members of the species carry the adaptive traits. For example, all humans (and all primates) have opposable thumbs, a feature that we now take for granted but that evolved over the course of millions of years.

One of the implications of natural selection is that characteristics—whether physiological or psychological—that are universally shared in a species are very likely the result of evolution. If similar psychological tendencies are found in humans regardless of culture, then there is a high probability that evolutionary pressures are responsible. For instance, individuals in all cultures share a taboo against incest. Whenever I talk to my students about incest, they shake their heads and show expressions of disgust. Yes, it is disgusting to think about—but why? Once we get past the mere disgust factor, students correctly point out that inbreeding increases the chances that offspring will have characteristics—genetic defects—that decrease the probability of survival. Evolutionary pressures have led to universal incest avoidance, and the disgust that we feel about incest is a psychological adaptation that has minimized its likelihood (HBO’s fantasy series Game of Thrones notwithstanding!). Biology clearly has a profound effect on social behavior. Returning to our opening example, how might our biology affect our sexual orientation?

Charles Darwin

©iStockphoto.com/stockcam.

A recent study nicely illustrates how the evolutionary perspective can be applied to understanding romantic attraction. Consider that the scent of a woman during ovulation can impact how a man rates the attractiveness of potential female partners (S. L. Miller & Maner, 2011). Miller and Maner (2011) had individual males work on a puzzle involving building blocks with a young female who was secretly working with the experimenter and was trained to refrain from flirtatious behavior. After the task the men were asked to rate her attractiveness, and how highly they rated her depended on two factors: whether or not they were in a romantic relationship and, believe it or not, whether or not she was ovulating. Single males rated her as more attractive when she was fertile versus when she was not, but men with partners showed the opposite tendency. Committed men downgraded her attractiveness, as if they were trying to avoid the temptation of an attractive woman! This is just one recent example of how biological factors can influence social behavior.

Moreover, advances in technology have ushered in the new subfield of social neuroscience that studies the relationships between social psychology and the brain (see Figure 1.4) (Todorov, Fiske, & Prentice, 2011). Social neuroscience applies sophisticated technology to investigating the complex interrelationships between social psychological phenomena—thoughts, feelings, and behavior—and the human nervous system (Ochsner, 2007). Chapter 2 provides a detailed explication of the logic and methods of social neuroscience, and we will discuss it throughout the text to show how it can complement existing approaches to a wide variety of topics.

Figure 1.4 Social Neuroscience: Connecting Brain and Social Behavior

Sometimes called social cognitive neuroscience—social neuroscience uses advanced technology to examine the interrelationships among the brain and social experiences, including thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Natural Selection: Genes that tend to increase the chances of survival of their carrier are more likely to be passed on to a new generation