Is friendship akin to kinship
TL;DR: A domain-specific over a domain-general approach to understanding intimate relationships is supported and a number of interesting questions about the modular structure of cognitive and affective processes involved in these relationships are raised.
About: This article is published in Evolution and Human Behavior.The article was published on 2007-09-01 and is currently open access. It has received 125 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Kin recognition & Kinship.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The Social Psychology of Groups as discussed by the authors is a seminal work in the field of family studies, where the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship.
Abstract: The Social Psychology of Groups. J. W Thibaut & H. H. Kelley. New York: alley, 1959. The team of Thibaut and Kelley goes back to 1946 when, after serving in different units of the armed services psychology program, the authors joined the Research Center for Group Dynamics, first at M.LT and then at the University of Michigan. Their continued association eventuated in appointments as fellows at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 19561957. It is during these years that their collaboration resulted in the publication of The Social Psychology of Groups. The book was designed to "bring order and coherence to present-day research in interpersonal relations and group functioning." To accomplish this aim, the authors introduced, defined, and illustrated basic concepts in an effort to explain the simplest of social phenomena, the two-person relationship. These basic principles and concepts were then employed to illuminate larger problems and more complex social relationships and to examine the significance of such concepts as roles, norm, power, group cohesiveness, and status. The lasting legacy of this book is derived from the fact that the concepts and principles discussed therein serve as a foundation for one of the dominant conceptual frameworks in the field of family studies today-the social exchange framework. Specifically, much of our contemporary thinking about the process of interpersonal attraction and about how individuals evaluate their close relationships has been influenced by the theory and concepts introduced in The Social Psychology of Groups. Today, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley, we think of interpersonal attraction as resulting from the unique valence of driving and restraining forces, rewards and costs, subjectively thought to be available from a specific relationship and its competing alternatives. We understand, as well, that relationships are evaluated through complex and subjectively based comparative processes. As a result, when we think about assessing the degree to which individuals are satisfied with their relationships, we take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the importance they attribute to different aspects of a relationship (e.g., financial security, sexual fulfillment, companionship). We also take into consideration the fact that individuals differ in terms of the levels of rewards and costs that they believe are realistically obtainable and deserved from a relationship. In addition, as a result of Thibaut and Kelley's theoretical focus on the concept of dependence and the interrelationship between attraction and dependence, there has evolved within the field of family studies a deeper appreciation for the complexities and variability found within relationships. Individuals are dependent on their relationships, according to Thibaut and Kelley, when the outcomes derived from the existing relationship exceed those perceived to be available in competing alternatives. Individuals who are highly dependent on their relationships are less likely to act to end their relationships. This dependence and the stability it engenders may or may not be voluntary, depending on the degree to which individuals are attracted to and satisfied with their relationships. When individuals are both attracted to and dependent on their relationships, they can be thought of as voluntarily participating in their relationship. That is, they are likely to commit themselves to the partner and relationship and actively work for its continuance. Thibaut and Kelley termed those relationships characterized by low levels of satisfaction and high levels of dependence "nonvoluntary relationships. …
1,894 citations
TL;DR: This work investigates a 3-domain model of disgust and introduces a new measure of disgust sensitivity, which shows predictable differentiation based on sex, perceived vulnerability to disease, psychopathic tendencies, and Big 5 personality traits.
Abstract: What is the function of disgust? Whereas traditional models have suggested that disgust serves to protect the self or neutralize reminders of our animal nature, an evolutionary perspective suggests that disgust functions to solve 3 qualitatively different adaptive problems related to pathogen avoidance, mate choice, and social interaction. The authors investigated this 3-domain model of disgust across 4 studies and examined how sensitivity to these functional domains relates to individual differences in other psychological constructs. Consistent with their predictions, factor analyses demonstrated that disgust sensitivity partitions into domains related to pathogens, sexuality, and morality. Further, sensitivity to the 3 domains showed predictable differentiation based on sex, perceived vulnerability to disease, psychopathic tendencies, and Big 5 personality traits. In exploring these 3 domains of disgust, the authors introduce a new measure of disgust sensitivity. Appreciation of the functional heterogeneity of disgust has important implications for research on individual differences in disgust sensitivity, emotion, clinical impairments, and neuroscience.
832 citations
Cites background or methods from "Is friendship akin to kinship"
...…of sexual arousal (Koukounas & McCabe, 1997; Vonderheide & Mosher, 1988), and as the prototypical response when individuals are asked to imagine sex with close genetic relatives (Ackerman et al., 2007; Fessler & Navarrete, 2004; Haidt, 2001; Lieberman et al., 2007; Westermarck, 1891/ 1921)....
[...]
...We modeled our item-generation procedures after the methods described by Haidt et al. (1994) in their generation of the original Disgust Scale....
[...]
TL;DR: This work revisits the idea of a motivational hierarchy in light of theoretical developments at the interface of evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology and proposes a renovated hierarchy of fundamental motives that serves as both an integrative framework and a generative foundation for future empirical research.
Abstract: Maslow’s pyramid of human needs, proposed in 1943, has been one of the most cognitively contagious ideas in the behavioral sciences. Anticipating later evolutionary views of human motivation and cognition, Maslow viewed human motives as based in innate and universal predispositions. We revisit the idea of a motivational hierarchy in light of theoretical developments at the interface of evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology. After considering motives at three different levels of analysis, we argue that the basic foundational structure of the pyramid is worth preserving, but that it should be buttressed with a few architectural extensions. By adding a contemporary design feature, connections between fundamental motives and immediate situational threats and opportunities should be highlighted. By incorporating a classical element, these connections can be strengthened by anchoring the hierarchy of human motives more firmly in the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. We propose a renovated hierarchy of fundamental motives that serves as both an integrative framework and a generative foundation for future empirical research.
820 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that in addition to motivating pathogen avoidance, disgust evolved to regulate decisions in the domains of mate choice and morality and is recast into a framework that can generate new lines of empirical and theoretical inquiry.
Abstract: Interest in and research on disgust has surged over the past few decades. The field, however, still lacks a coherent theoretical framework for understanding the evolved function or functions of disgust. Here we present such a framework, emphasizing 2 levels of analysis: that of evolved function and that of information processing. Although there is widespread agreement that disgust evolved to motivate the avoidance of contact with disease-causing organisms, there is no consensus about the functions disgust serves when evoked by acts unrelated to pathogen avoidance. Here we suggest that in addition to motivating pathogen avoidance, disgust evolved to regulate decisions in the domains of mate choice and morality. For each proposed evolved function, we posit distinct information processing systems that integrate function-relevant information and account for the trade-offs required of each disgust system. By refocusing the discussion of disgust on computational mechanisms, we recast prior theorizing on disgust into a framework that can generate new lines of empirical and theoretical inquiry.
565 citations
TL;DR: In studies involving a total of 1,141 participants and nine different samples, it is found that the personal sense of power was coherent within social contexts and was affected not only by sociostructural factors but also by personality variables such as dominance.
Abstract: Scholars who examine the psychological effects of power have often argued that possessing power shapes individual behavior because it instills an elevated sense of power. However, little is known about the personal sense of power because very few studies have examined it empirically. In studies involving a total of 1,141 participants and nine different samples, we found that the personal sense of power was coherent within social contexts; for example, individuals who believed that they can get their way in a group also believed that they can influence fellow group members' attitudes and opinions. The personal sense of power was also moderately consistent across relationships but showed considerable relationship specificity; for example, individuals' personal sense of power vis-a-vis their friend tended to be distinct but moderately related to their personal sense of power vis-a-vis their parent. And the personal sense of power was affected not only by sociostructural factors (e.g., social position, status) but also by personality variables such as dominance.
561 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1935
TL;DR: In this paper, Neuberg and Heine discuss the notion of belonging, acceptance, belonging, and belonging in the social world, and discuss the relationship between friendship, membership, status, power, and subordination.
Abstract: VOLUME 2. Part III: The Social World. 21. EVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven L. Neuberg, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller). 22. MORALITY (Jonathan Haidt and Selin Kesebir). 23. AGGRESSION (Brad J. Bushman and L. Rowell Huesmann). 24. AFFILIATION, ACCEPTANCE, AND BELONGING: THE PURSUIT OF INTERPERSONAL CONNECTION (Mark R. Leary). 25. CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS (Margaret S. Clark and Edward P. Lemay, Jr.). 26. INTERPERSONAL STRATIFICATION: STATUS, POWER, AND SUBORDINATION (Susan T. Fiske). 27. SOCIAL CONFLICT: THE EMERGENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF STRUGGLE AND NEGOTIATION (Carsten K. W. De Dreu). 28. INTERGROUP RELATIONS 1(Vincent Yzerbyt and Stephanie Demoulin). 29. INTERGROUP BIAS (John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner). 30. SOCIAL JUSTICE: HISTORY, THEORY, AND RESEARCH (John T. Jost and Aaron C. Kay). 31. INFLUENCE AND LEADERSHIP (Michael A. Hogg). 32. GROUP BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE (J. Richard Hackman and Nancy Katz). 33. ORGANIZATIONAL PREFERENCES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES (Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Larissa Z. Tiedens). 34. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOR (Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, and Joshua Harder). 35. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW (Margaret Bull Kovera and Eugene Borgida). 36. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LANGUAGE: WORDS, UTTERANCES, AND CONVERSATIONS (Thomas Holtgraves). 37. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven J. Heine). AUTHOR INDEX. SUBJECT INDEX.
13,453 citations
12 Jul 2017
TL;DR: The p,cnetics of sex nas now becn clarif ied, and Fishcr ( 1958 ) hrs produccd , n,od"l to cxplarn sex ratios at coDception, a nrodel recently extendcd to include special mccha_ nisms that operate under inbreeding (Hunrilron I96?).
Abstract: There is a tendency among biologists studying social behavior to regard the adult sex ratio as an independent variable to which the species reacts with appropriate adaptations D Lack often interprets social behavior as an adaptation in part to an unbalanced (or balanced) sex ratio, and J Verner has summarized other instances of this tendency The only mechanism that will generate differential mortality independent of sexual differences clearly related to parental investment and sexual selection is the chromosomal mechanism, applied especially to humans and other mammals: the unguarded X chromosome of the male is presumed to predispose him to higher mortality Each offspring can be viewed as an investment independent of other offspring, increasing investment in one offspring tending to decrease investment in others Species can be classified according to the relative parental investment of the sexes in their young In the vast majority of species, the male's only contribution to the survival of his offspring is his sex cells
10,571 citations
"Is friendship akin to kinship" refers background in this paper
...A second line of reasoning applies more clearly to cross-sex friendships and draws on the logic of differential parental investment which suggests that, compared to men, women are likely to be more cautious and risk-averse in their approach to mating (Trivers, 1972)....
[...]
...In line with the immense literature on differential parental investment (Trivers, 1972), it also makes sense that these modules would operate somewhat differently for males and females....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1959
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on patterns of interdependence and assume that these patterns play an important causal role in the processes, roles, and norms of relationships in interpersonal relations.
Abstract: This landmark theory of interpersonal relations and group functioning argues that the starting point for understanding social behavior is the analysis of dyadic interdependence. Such an analysis portrays the ways in which the separate and joint actions of two persons affect the quality of their lives and the survival of their relationship. The authors focus on patterns of interdependence, and on the assumption that these patterns play an important causal role in the processes, roles, and norms of relationships. This powerful theory has many applications in all the social sciences, including the study of social and moral norms; close-pair relationships; conflicts of interest and cognitive disputes; social orientations; the social evolution of economic prosperity and leadership in groups; and personal relationships.
5,869 citations
TL;DR: In the second series of experiments, it was found that the maximum joint profit independent of group membership did not affect significantly the manner in which the subjects divided real pecuniary rewards; however, maximum profit for own group did affect the distribution of rewards; and the clearest effect on the subject's attempt to achieve a maximum difference between the ingroup and the outgroup even at the price of sacrificing other "objective" advantages.
Abstract: The aim of the studies was to assess the effefcs of social categorization on intergroup behaviour when, in the intergroup situation, neither calculations of individual interest nor previously existing attitudes of hostility could have been said to have determined discriminative behaviour against an outgroup. These conditions were satisfied in the experimental design. In the first series of experiments, it was found that the subjects favoured their own group in the distribution of real rewards and penalities in a situation in which nothing but the variable of fairly irrelevant classification distinguished between the ingroup and the outgroup. In the second series of experiments it was found that: 1) maximum joint profit independent of group membership did not affect significantly the manner in which the subjects divided real pecuniary rewards; 2) maximum profit for own group did affect the distribution of rewards; 3) the clearest effect on the distribution of rewards was due to the subjects' attempt to achieve a maximum difference between the ingroup and the outgroup even at the price of sacrificing other ‘objective’ advantages.
The design and the results of the study are theoretically discussed within the framework of social norms and expectations and particularly in relation to a ‘generic’ norm of outgroup behaviour prevalent in some societies.
4,523 citations