Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Evolutionary Perspectives on Personality Part Two. Biological Domain Chapter 6: Do our genes influence our personality traits? Chapter 7:Do our physiological systems (e.g., brain, peripheral nervous system) influence our personality traits? Chapter 8: How are personality traits adaptive (Evolutionary Theory)? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 2 Lecture Outline 3 Ways personality became an adaptation Natural Selection, 2 Types of Sexual Selection 2 Evolutionary Explanations for Individual Differences Fluctuating Optimum, Frequency Dependence Sex Differences in Personality Altruism and Inclusive Fitness © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 3 Adaptation requirements A gene mutation developed to solve an adaptive problem. Inherited characteristics develop in most or all species members produced by natural selection because they solved an adaptive problem— functionality must have contributed to reproductive success, directly or indirectly need not be present at birth (teeth, breasts, beards, desires, emotions, personality traits, etc.) Adapted from homepage.psy.utexas.edu © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 4 3 Ways Personality Traits Became Adaptations Natural Selection Sexual Selection Intrasexual Competition Intersexual Competition © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 5 Natural Selection Determines whether a mutation should be removed from the population or spread throughout the population. Mutation – a change in gene structure when the gene is being passed on to future generations. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 6 Natural Selection Problematic Mutations Beneficial Mutations ↓ Production / Death ↑ Production / Survival © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood Slowly Spreads through population Removed from population Adaptation 7 Personality Traits as Adaptations: What adaptive problems do the Big Five solve? O • High vs. Low C • High vs. Low E • High vs. Low A • High vs. Low N • High vs. Low © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 8 Personality Traits as Adaptations: What adaptive problems do the Big Five solve? Finding a valuable mate Dangerous vs. Safe Environments Finding food, shelter Protection Advancements in technology Leadership Helping / Altruism © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 9 Sexual Selection: Two Forms Intrasexual Competition: members of the same sex compete with each other for sexual access to members of the other sex Male-male competition Female-Female competition © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 10 Think about a same-sex friend. In the past 3 months, how did your friend compete with other same-sex competitors for the attention of the opposite-sex? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 11 Men (more than women) He lifted weights. Women (more than men) She went on a diet to improve her figure. He had sex on the first date. She played hard to get. He drove an expensive car. She shaved her legs. He showed off his driving She giggled when guys skills. were around. He slept around with a lot of She learned how to apply girls. cosmetics. He acted like he was She was sympathetic to his interested in sports. troubles. He mentioned that he had a She got a new, interesting lot of status and prestige hairstyle. among his work colleagues. He strutted in front of the She wore stylish, group. fashionable clothing. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood Sexual Selection: Two Forms Intersexual Competition: members of one sex choose a mate based on their preferences for particular qualities in that mate The Office “Mate Preferences” © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 13 Sexual Selection: Two Forms What things do men look for in a female mate? What things do women look for in a male mate? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 14 Mate Preferences 3 2 * * * n.s. 1 0 Love v. Status/Resources Dependable/Stable vs. Education/Intelligence Sociability vs. Similar Good Looks/Health vs. Desire for Religion Home/Children Men Women (Shackelford et al., 2005) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 15 Mate Preferences for Personality Similarity Genetic Similarity Theory Adaptation to prefer mates with similarity levels of specific personality traits. Social Exchange Theory Adaptation to prefer mates with same overall mate value. Matching Theory** Female MZ and DZ twins Ranked mate preferences; self-reported TIPI Both were heritable (Verweij et al., 2014; Phillips et al., 2010) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 16 2 Explanations for Individual Differences Frequency Dependence Fluctuation Optimum © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 17 Frequency Dependence If level of personality trait is successful If level of a personality trait is not successful ↑ in frequency ↓ in frequency © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 18 Cheating Strategy Balance! • Feigns cooperation, then defects As number of psychopaths ↑, ↑ cost to cooperative humans Benefit to cheating strategy ↓, so # psychopaths ↓ More people evolve cheatingdetector mechanisms ↑ Cost to psychopaths © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 19 Fluctuating Optimum Diversity in traits (high and low levels) exist because: In certain places, a high level was advantageous In other places, a low level was advantageous © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 20 China’s Bachelors Changes in environment Personality trait leading to low reproductive success is least desirable trait Determine level of personality trait that leads to high reproductive success Personality trait leading to high reproductive success is more desirable trait © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 21 Sex Differences in Personality Video #1 Children and Altruism Same adaptive problems – no sex differences Different adaptive problems – sex differences! Men: Paternity Uncertainty Women: Commitment from Partner © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 22 Big Five Trait Men higher on: Assertiveness; Aggressiveness; Dominance (E) Adaptive Problem? Openness to Ideas Women higher on: Sociability (E) Neuroticism Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to Feelings © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 23 Men higher in Aggression Engage in more aggression More and longer homicidal thoughts More likely to be victims Adaptive Problems include: Parental investment Intrasexual (male-male) Competition © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 24 Murder: Byproduct or adaptation? Byproduct Hypothesis (Kendrick & Sheet, 1993) Byproduct: neutral or bad characteristics associated with an overall beneficial mutation. Homicide Adaptation Theory (Buss & Duntley, 2006) Homicide solves an adaptive problem. (CDC, 2002; Kenrick & Sheets,1993)) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 25 Extraversion and Desire for Sexual Variety Less investment, more variety! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 26 Altruism and Inclusive Fitness A. B. C. D. E. You are on a large ship and the ship is sinking. Time is running out! From first to last, rank the order in which you will save each person! Your romantic partner Your mother Your child Your sibling Your friend © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 27 Kin Altruism • Benefit to altruistic individual comes from fact that other individual is likely to be his/her kin Reciprocal Altruism • Benefit to altruistic individual comes from reciprocation of altruism by other individual © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 28 Altruism and Inclusive Fitness Inclusive fitness theory (kin selection; Hamilton, 1964) Coefficient of Relatedness (r) r = proportion of alleles of person A that are identical to alleles of person B © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 29 Altruism: Hamilton’s Rule An individual can be altruistic if c < b*r C = cost; b = benefit; r = relatedness An individual may not reproduce in a given year (c=1) to help her sibling if this helps the sibling raise at least 5 additional offspring (r= .25; b=5). 1 < 5*.25 → 1< 1.25 √ Flipping equation around: If r = ½, then benefit, b, must ≥ 2c © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 30 Altruism: Hamilton’s Rule Austin and his wife do not reproduce in two years (c=2). To help his brother, Austin is thinking about raising two of his nephews. Should Austin help his brother? A. Yes! B. No! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 31 Altruism: Person-Situation Interaction Strong Situations When will people typically help? When will people typically not help? Weaker Situations Personality predicts helping © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 32 © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 33 Situation or Personality? #1 #2 #3 Supermarket © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 34 Kin or Reciprocal? Self-Report Altruism Scale (SAR; Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981) I have helped push a stranger’s car out of the snow I have given directions to a stranger I have made change for a stranger I have given money to a charity. I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it). I have donated goods or clothes to a charity I have done volunteer work for a charity I have donated blood. I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.). I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (at photocopy machine, in the supermarket). I have given a stranger a lift in my car. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 35 Fast, Life History Strategy Narcissism Excessive ego, selfish Psychopathy Machiavellianism callous, impulsive, predatory calculated social manipulation © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 36 Can we be both prosocial and antisocial? Babies Self-reported Altruism Scale and Measures of delinquency r = -.08, n.s. Altruism → Positive Emotionality Antisocial → Negative Emotionality PLUS lack of constraint (Low C) (Krueger et al., 2001) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 37 Alternative Theories to Evolution Social Role Theory Measurement Error © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 38 Limitations of Evolutionary Psychology We cannot go back in time to confirm our hypothesis Modern conditions are from ancestral conditions Gender differences are NOT VERY LARGE © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 39