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
TL;DR: A study of self-construal involving 5 cultures shows that differences between these cultures are captured mostly by the extent to which people see themselves as acting as independent agents, whereas gender differences are best summarized by the whether people regard themselves as emotionally related to others.
Abstract: Individualism and collectivism are often equated with independent vs. interdependent, agentic vs. communal, and separate vs. relational self-construals. Although these same concepts have been used to characterize both cultural and gender differences, a perspective of cultural evolution suggests it is unlikely. A division of labor within society may produce gender differences, but this cannot explain cultural differences. A study of self-construal involving 5 cultures (Australia, the United States, Hawaii, Japan, and Korea) shows that differences between these cultures are captured mostly by the extent to which people see themselves as acting as independent agents, whereas gender differences are best summarized by the extent to which people regard themselves as emotionally related to others.
766 citations
"Is friendship akin to kinship" refers background in this paper
...Women and men take somewhat different approaches to social bonding (Geary & Flinn, 2002; Kashima et al., 1995; Taylor et al., 2000)....
[...]
01 Jan 1998
712 citations
"Is friendship akin to kinship" refers background in this paper
...…2005; Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2003, 2007; Park & Schaller, 2005), the psychological study of kin relations remains largely invisible compared to the enormous literatures on relationships between genetically unrelated individuals (e.g., Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003)....
[...]
TL;DR: This article elaborate error management theory (EMT), predicting that if judgments are made under uncertainty, and the costs of false positive and false negative errors have been asymmetric over evolutionary history, selection should have favored a bias toward making the least costly error.
Abstract: Human cognition is often biased, from judgments of the time of impact of approaching objects all the way through to estimations of social outcomes in the future. We propose these effects and a host of others may all be understood from an evolutionary psychological perspective. In this article, we elaborate error management theory (EMT; Haselton & Buss, 2000). EMT predicts that if judgments are made under uncertainty, and the costs of false positive and false negative errors have been asymmetric over evolutionary history, selection should have favored a bias toward making the least costly error. This perspective integrates a diverse array of effects under a single explanatory umbrella, and it yields new content-specific predictions.
670 citations
"Is friendship akin to kinship" refers background in this paper
...…sorts of signal detection problems, people tend to respond adaptively—systematically avoiding the more costly errors by exhibiting reactions biased in the opposite direction, even though this inevitably increases their chances of making the less costly error (Haselton & Nettle, 2006; Nesse, 2005)....
[...]
08 Sep 2015
TL;DR: It is argued that the evolutionary perspective to social psychology is not untestable, not reductionist, not a theory about rigid genetic determinism,not a justification for the status quo, and not incompatible with sociocultural or cognitive analyses.
Abstract: We have argued that the evolutionary perspective to social psychology is not untestable, not reductionist, not a theory about rigid genetic determinism, not a justification for the status quo, and not incompatible with sociocultural or cognitive analyses. What it is, instead, is a set of ideas that have proved quite useful in generating novel hypotheses, and parsimoniously connecting findings from very different domains ranging from mate choice and family relationships to aggression and intergroup relations. Adopting an evolutionary perspective can help us appreciate not only the common threads that bind the people in our culture to those in other cultures, but also, beyond that, to the other species with which we share the earth. Taking this broad perspective, however, also makes us aware of the vast reaches of our own ignorance. As yet, we know very little about how evolved psychological mechanisnis inside individuals develop, or how they influence, and are influenced by, the complex cultures that humans construct. Bringing light to these questions will require a fuller integration of all the different theoretical perspectives on human social behavior.
639 citations
TL;DR: It is proposed that modularity, cleanly defined, provides a useful framework for directing research and resolving debates about individual cognitive systems and the nature of human evolved cognition.
Abstract: Modularity has been the subject of intense debate in the cognitive sciences for more than 2 decades. In some cases, misunderstandings have impeded conceptual progress. Here the authors identify arguments about modularity that either have been abandoned or were never held by proponents of modular views of the mind. The authors review arguments that purport to undermine modularity, with particular attention on cognitive architecture, development, genetics, and evolution. The authors propose that modularity, cleanly defined, provides a useful framework for directing research and resolving debates about individual cognitive systems and the nature of human evolved cognition. Modularity is a fundamental property of living things at every level of organization; it might prove indispensable for understanding the structure of the mind as well.
606 citations
"Is friendship akin to kinship" refers background in this paper
...On the other hand, and consistent with more modern flexible views of modularity (e.g., Barrett & Kurzban, 2006), it is possible that these results may reflect the operation of shared mechanisms (see Fig....
[...]