C h a p t e r 1

Evolutionary Social Cognition

Steven L. Neuberg and Mark Schaller

It is nearly trite to note that the human social world the success with which humansASSOCIATION address recurring is complex, dynamic, and rich in information. It is challenges to reproductive fitness (Buss, 1995; also a well-worn trope in psychology that the human ­Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). mind lacks the capacity to process all this informa- As with other metatheoretical approaches—for tion, online or otherwise. So what’s a mind to do? example, social psychology or cognitive science— The answer is that the mind attends to some bits evolutionary psychology is a set of assumptions that of information while ignoring others, uses a variety enable one to derive specific theories, models, and of mental shortcuts to reduce processing load, and hypotheses that are themselves testable and subject generally engages a wide range of simplifying pro- to invalidation. Also, as with any metatheoretical cesses to muddle through in the face of an otherwise approach,PSYCHOLOGICAL it can be evaluated against four important daunting task. Such social cognition is often viewed standards for scientific success: (a) its logical coher- as irrational and error prone, with ill consequences ence; (b) its ability to enable the rigorous deduction for both perceivers and perceived. of specific theories that explain the phenomena of The social mind is indeed a biased social infor- psychology as we currently know them; (c) its abil- mation processor, but it is not arbitrarilyAMERICAN biased. ity to generate testable hypotheses that are interest- Rather, it is designed for a very specific© purpose—a ing, novel, nuanced, and ultimately supported by purpose that helps explain the ways in which, and data; and (d) its ability to connect phenomena at why, social cognition is indeed focused and selec- ­different levels of analysis and description. Judged tive and biased. The mind is not designed to make against these criteria, the evolutionary approach to perfectly correct decisions,PROOFS and it is not designed to social psychology has proven to be quite successful help people achieve happiness, a sense of control (Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010). over their lives, or some greater meaning, although We focus here on evolutionary social ­cognition— it may sometimes appear that way. Rather, the how everyday cognition is tied to the fundamental, ­ultimate purpose of the mind is to enable people to recurring adaptive challenges of social life. We begin manage the very real, very tangible opportunities by articulating the logical foundations of and threats that humans have recurrently ­evolutionary social cognition. We then discuss the ­confronted across their evolutionary history in ways in which evolutionary social cognition is UNCORRECTEDsuch a way as to enhance the individual’s inherently motivated social cognition and subse- ­reproductive fitness. quently review a rapidly growing body of research The metatheory of evolutionary psychology demonstrating the presence of adaptation-based, assumes that the human brain, like all aspects of the functional social-cognitive processes aimed at human body, has been shaped by biological selec- ­managing challenges of self-protection, disease tion processes, with the general effect of increasing avoidance, resource acquisition, social affiliation,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14341.001 APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and Social Cognition, M. Mikulincer and P. R. Shaver (Editors-in-Chief) 3 Copyright © 2015 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 3 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

status acquisition, mate seeking, mate retention, and to social cognition. Consider Cosmides’ classic work kin care. We close by briefly revisiting big lessons (e.g., Cosmides, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 2005) and highlighting promising arenas for future theo- on cheater detection. Using the Wason selection rizing and exploration. task, which in its typical, abstract operationalization suggests striking flaws in people’s reasoning ability, Cosmides and colleagues demonstrated that people LOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF instead perform quite well when the task is framed EVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL COGNITION in the context of a social exchange relationship. An evolutionary perspective on social cognition Their conclusion—that this enhanced performance assumes two elementary principles of genetic evolu- reflects an underlying set of cognitive adaptations tion and developmental biology. First, the genes that that evolved as a means of detecting nonreciproca- define contemporary human populations are the tors in exchange relationships—is buttressed by a product of a long history of evolution by natural range of findings, including evidence that this pat- selection. This principle is noncontroversial. tern of reasoning is also evident inASSOCIATION many cultural ­Second, the human nervous system typically devel- populations, including nonliterate Amazonian ops according to a recipe encoded in those genes. hunter–horticulturists (e.g., Harris, Núñez, & Brett, This principle, too, is noncontroversial. When inte- 2001; Sugiyama, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2002). grated, the following statement logically follows: The assumption of universality does not, how- The human nervous system is characterized by ever, imply homogeneity in psychological respond- ­stimulus–response mechanisms of specific kinds ing, any more than an evolutionary approach to that, compared with plausible alternative mecha- genetics implies that all people must be clones. Of nisms, generally had positive implications for the course there are individual differences in human reproductive fitness of the genes that make up the cognitionPSYCHOLOGICAL and cultural differences, too. An evolu- recipe for constructing the human nervous system. tionary approach does implicitly assume, however, This sentence is dense and requires some careful that although differences may be found at one level unpacking to be clear about what it says (and does of psychological analysis, many of these differences not say). As we unpack it, we highlight 10 elements may reflect universal psychological mechanisms essential to the logic of an evolutionary approach to operating at another, deeper level of analysis psychology, in general, and to social cognition,AMERICAN (Norenzayan, Schaller, & Heine, 2006). One poten- specifically. © tial value of an evolutionary approach is that it com- pels researchers to try to identify those deeper (often “The Human Nervous System . . .” nonobvious) underlying universal mechanisms. We purposely use the word human to imply univer- sality across all Homo sapiensPROOFS. Underlying any “Is Characterized by Stimulus–Response ­evolutionary approach to social cognition is the Mechanisms . . .” assumption that the basic mechanisms of human Many social-cognitive phenomena function as psychology are universal across all normally devel- ­stimulus–response mechanisms, in which specific oping individuals in all contemporary human popu- sets of psychological inputs trigger specific kinds of lations. An evolutionary approach to social psychological outputs (e.g., the visual perception of cognition is thus dedicated to the elucidation of symmetrical facial features elicits the inference that social-cognitive processes relevant to all people the face is physically attractive; G. Miller & Todd, everywhere.UNCORRECTED 1998). These stimulus–response relations often For this reason, just as cross-cultural evidence occur in cascades, in which a psychological response contributes to conclusions about the evolutionary stimulates further responses, as when the inference bases of emotions (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1971; that someone is physically attractive elicits addi- Tracy & Robins, 2008), cross-cultural research also tional emotional, cognitive, and behavioral plays an important role in evolutionary approaches responses. In many cases, the presence or magnitude

4

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 4 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

of a particular stimulus–response relation is itself on the basis of observed behavior, social identity– responsive to the presence of other stimuli. For based inference processes through which negative example, the perception of symmetrical facial fea- ­out-group stereotypes are formed, retrieval pro- tures may elicit rather different emotional, cogni- cesses through which information is activated into tive, and behavioral responses, depending on working memory). Underlying much of this tradi- whether it is an opposite-sex or same-sex face or tional ­process-oriented research is the tacit depending on the broader social context in which assumption that the content of these processes is the face is perceived. A large part of this chapter irrelevant or, at least, interchangeable. For exam- focuses on how certain perceiver goals—themselves ple, the same ­attribution processes are presumed to typically engaged by stimuli in the environment— underlie ­inferences about friendliness, nervous- act to modulate not only which stimuli in the social ness, or ­attitudes about communism; the same environment are perceived and attended to in the social identity processes are seen to contribute to first place but also the responses these stimuli elicit. stereotypes about ignorance, untrustworthiness, or Evolved cognitive mechanisms tend not to operate criminal behavior; and the sameASSOCIATION implicit memory in a fixed and closed manner but rather in a contex- processes are invoked regardless of what kind of tually contingent, situationally sensitive, and open information might be available for retrieval into manner (Mayr, 1976). working memory. Whereas traditional research on social cognition Evolutionary approaches have revealed that this is devoted to describing and explaining these kinds tacit assumption overlooks deeper nuances of stimulus–response relations in terms of mecha- ­pertaining to the psychological processes through nisms operating at an individual level of analysis, a which people cognitively respond to their social rigorous evolutionary approach to social cognition environment. Just as unique brain structures are requires that researchers also articulate the popula- usedPSYCHOLOGICAL when processing specific kinds of visual stimuli tion-level evolutionary processes that explain how associated with unique evolutionary implications these stimulus–response mechanisms came to char- (e.g., the human body, faces; Downing, Jiang, Shu- acterize humans in the first place. In other words, an man, & Kanwisher, 2001; Kanwisher, McDermott, evolutionary approach to social cognition is defined & Chun, 1997), unique reasoning mechanisms by attempts to integrate proximate explanations of appear to be used when making decisions in spe- human social cognition with ultimate explanationsAMERICAN cific kinds of social contexts that had unique evolu- as well. A considerable body of research© has now tionary implications (e.g., social exchange contexts; emerged identifying the adaptive implications that Cosmides, 1989). The same principle applies specific physical features (including facial symme- broadly across a wide range of social-cognitive phe- try) have in the context of mating relationships, nomena. People may more readily form impressions which in turn have empiricallyPROOFS testable implications about some specific traits rather than others; people for the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral may more readily form stereotypes that discrimi- responses triggered by those features and traits and nate along some specific negative attributes rather for the contexts under which those responses are than others; and particular kinds of stereotypes, either muted or exaggerated (e.g., G. Miller & Todd, rather than others, may be especially likely to be 1998; Neuberg et al., 2010). activated into working memory. Predictions about these content-specific responses are readily deduc- “Of Specific Kinds That . . .” ible when one rigorously applies the logical tools of UNCORRECTEDEvolutionary analyses of social cognition frequently evolutionary psychology. The result is a body of yield hypotheses highly specific in terms of con- research that not only contributes in novel ways to tent. This content specificity stands in contrast to the understanding of social-cognitive processes but many other approaches to social cognition that also reveals many novel conclusions about the focus primarily on process (e.g., attribution pro- highly specific content of inferences and attitudes cesses through which individuals form impressions that emerge from those processes.

5

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 5 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

One illustrative line of research has explored “Compared With Plausible Alternative inferential responses to babyish facial features. Mechanisms . . .” Adaptive behavioral responses to neonatal offspring People sometimes assume that evolution creates (e.g., the provision of parental care) would have optimal organisms, with the implication that any been facilitated by cognitive mechanisms implicitly evolved mental mechanism should be just about linking certain perceptual stimuli (e.g., babyish perfect. This assumption is wrong. People some- ­features) to inferences about traits characteristic of times also assume the corollary that evolutionary individuals requiring care (e.g., “This individual is processes cannot legitimately be used to explain incapable of taking care of him- or herself and is imperfect processes. This assumption is also wrong. worthy of my assistance”). One consequence of this Natural selection is not a forward-looking, creative stimulus–response mechanism is that perceivers process. Rather, it is a winnowing process, the out- draw these implicit inferences not only about babies comes of which are constrained by available genetic but also about a predictable subset of adults, too: alternatives. If the available alternatives are genes Baby-faced men are judged to be relatively nice but that make people dumb and genesASSOCIATION that make people also relatively naïve and incompetent (Zebrowitz & dumber, then evolutionary processes may produce a Montepare, 2006; see Chapter 7, this volume). Note population that is dumb rather than dumber. They that baby-facedness does not elicit a generally cannot, however, produce a population any smarter ­positive overall impression or a generally negative than that. overall impression. Rather, it simultaneously elicits a Evolution is also constrained by basic principles very specific kind of positive impression (nice rather of physics, chemistry, and biology. Consider, for than nasty) and a very specific kind of negative example, psychological mechanisms used in the impression (incapable rather than capable). ­service of recognizing kin. To inhibit incest (which The same point is also illustrated by research doc- can imposePSYCHOLOGICAL costs on reproductive fitness) and to umenting highly specific linkages between perceived facilitate nepotism (which can benefit reproductive threats and the contents of group prejudices. Mem- fitness), adaptive advantages would have been asso- bers of different social groups are perceived to pose ciated with mental mechanisms enabling perceivers different kinds of threats to survival and reproduc- to discriminate between other individuals according tion. For instance, European American undergradu- to their degree of genetic relatedness. An ideal ates in one study perceived Mexican AmericansAMERICAN as mechanism for doing so would provide instant posing a threat to physical safety, whereas ©they per- ­perceptual access to another individual’s actual ceived gay men as posing a threat to health (Cottrell genetic makeup and would compute an unerring & Neuberg, 2005). An evolutionary approach to index of self–other genetic similarity. Any such prejudice implies that these distinct forms of threat magical mechanism is as physically implausible as are likely to elicit qualitativelyPROOFS distinct kinds of preju- X-ray vision. Instead, the problem of kin recognition dicial responses, and they do: Mexican Americans in humans and other animals appears to have been elicited more fear than did gay men, whereas gay men solved by the evolution of stimulus–response mech- elicited more disgust than did Mexican Americans anisms sensitive to superficial cues (e.g., facial (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). It is worth noting that resemblance) that are correlated with kinship, albeit the overall evaluative attitude toward both groups imperfectly (Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2007; was equally negative and that these superficially simi- Park, Schaller, & Van Vugt, 2008). The imperfect lar attitudes masked fundamental differences in their UNCORRECTED diagnosticity of these cues results in predictable specific affective and connotative contents. inference errors in which kin are sometimes treated Unlike many other approaches, then, the evolu- as nonkin and nonkin are sometime treated as tionary approach often makes novel, nuanced pre- kin—an important point we elaborate on in the dictions about the content of social cognition. To next section. evolutionary social cognitivists, content, as well as Evolutionary processes are additionally constrained process, matters. by the cumulative physiological consequences of

6

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 6 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

­previous evolutionary adaptations—which may be ­idiosyncratic to one particular instance or one par- impossible to undo even if they are no longer func- ticular individual. A particular cognitive disposition tionally useful. For example, relatively recent evolu- may have had no beneficial implications at all under tionary adaptations in neocortical physiology endow many circumstances (and may even have been costly humans with the capacity to use logical reasoning under some circumstances) yet may still have processes and abstract symbols (e.g., linguistic labels proven evolutionarily adaptive when considering its for kin members) to ascertain another person’s relative reproductive benefits across all circum- degree of genetic relatedness with formidable accu- stances and across all individuals in a population. racy. In an ideal world, perhaps, the evolutionary This point attests further to the inevitable imper- emergence of these neocortical capacities would be fection of evolved psychological processes and also accompanied by the simultaneous disappearance of suggests that the exact nature of those imperfections the older, cruder (and more error-prone) cue-based can be predicted by applying a cost–benefit logic that kin recognition mechanisms. However, that is rarely underlies rigorous evolutionary theorizing. One use- the way evolution works. Inferences about kinship ful logical tool is the smoke detectorASSOCIATION principle continue to be implicitly informed by evolutionarily (Nesse, 2005), in which the adapted design of the ancient cue-based stimulus–response mechanisms, human mind is likened, metaphorically, to the inten- which has broad implications. Even in interactions tional design of smoke detectors that homeowners with total strangers, for instance, phenotypic resem- install on their ceilings. Smoke detectors are signal blance triggers kin-connoting inferences. Opposite- detection devices and have the potential to make sex strangers with faces that merely resemble the false positive errors (erroneously signaling the pres- perceiver’s own are judged both as more trustworthy ence of a house fire when there is no such fire) and and as less sexually attractive—a pair of inferences false negative errors (erroneously failing to signal the that makes good sense for actual kin (DeBruine, presencePSYCHOLOGICAL of an actual fire). Any attempt to systemati- 2005). Attitude similarity may also serve as a heuris- cally minimize one kind of error increases the likeli- tic cue for kinship: Compared with strangers with hood of the other. Both errors are equally erroneous, dissimilar attitudes, attitudinally similar strangers are but they differ greatly in their costs: False-positive implicitly associated with semantic concepts connot- errors are merely irritating, whereas false-negative ing kinship (Park & Schaller, 2005). The intriguing errors can be devastating. For this reason, smoke implication is that many social psychologicalAMERICAN conse- detectors are deliberately calibrated to minimize the quences of incidental similarities—including© similar- possibility of a false-negative error, with the inevita- ities that ostensibly have nothing to do with familial ble consequence that they make many false-positive relationships at all—may result, in part, from the errors. Analogously, many psychological stimulus– implicit operation of ancient cue-based mechanisms response mechanisms also serve a signal detection of kin recognition. ThesePROOFS phenomena include the function (e.g., the detection of anger, or kinship, or well-documented effects of attitude similarity on fertility) and so also have the potential to produce interpersonal liking, the effects of nominal similarity both false-positive and false-negative errors. These on preferences and decision making (i.e., the name– errors also typically differ in their costly implications letter effect), and the effects of various arbitrary simi- for reproductive fitness and so, as a result of natural larities (such as sharing a birthdate) on achievement selection processes, these mechanisms show predict- motivation and task performance (e.g., Byrne, 1961; able adaptive biases: They err on the side of minimiz- J. T. Jones, Pelham, Carvallo, & Mirenberg, 2004; ing the likelihood of the most costly errors, with the UNCORRECTEDWalton, Cohen, Cwir, & Spencer, 2012; for a review, inevitable consequence that they instead produce see Park et al., 2008). many errors of a less costly kind (Haselton & Nettle, 2006). This principle, and the evolutionary cost– “Generally . . .” benefit logic that underlies it, can be used to deduce The adaptive implications of psychological novel predictions pertaining to the biases and errors responses cannot be revealed by consequences that characterize social cognition.

7

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 7 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

One illustrative application of the smoke detec- also by menopause). Each individual offspring has tor principle can be found in a line of research link- thus been of greater reproductive value to females ing interpersonal prejudice to the psychology of than to males, with the implication that female disease avoidance. Infectious diseases posed a threat mammals tend to be pickier in their choice of male to survival (and thus to reproductive fitness) mates: The extent to which male mates are capable throughout human evolutionary history. As a conse- of producing genetically fit offspring, and are willing quence, a behavioral immune system appears to to invest resources in offspring care, has been have evolved (Schaller, 2011; Schaller & Park, greatly important. For female perceivers, then, the 2011). It is characterized by psychological mecha- reproductive cost of erroneously inferring positive nisms that respond adversely to perceptual cues qualities in a potential mate (a false-positive error) connoting the presence of disease-causing patho- was typically greater than the cost of failing to per- gens in other individuals (e.g., anomalous morpho- ceive positive qualities that actually exist (a false- logical features). Because these superficial cues are negative error). The adaptive implication of this cost only imperfectly correlated with actual infection, asymmetry is a female bias towardASSOCIATION skepticism about however, inference errors are inevitable. False-posi- the positive qualities of potential mates (Haselton & tive errors lead to the avoidance of healthy people Buss, 2000). In contrast, for male perceivers, the (who are erroneously judged to be infectious); false- cost of failing to avail oneself of a willing mate (a negative errors lead to failures to avoid infectious false-negative error) was typically greater than the people (who are erroneously judged to be healthy). cost of erroneously inferring a willingness that did False-positive errors typically have minimal conse- not actually exist (a false-positive error). The adap- quences for perceivers, but false-negative errors can tive implication is a male bias toward overperceiving be fatal. In accordance with the smoke detector female sexual desire (Haselton & Buss, 2000). principle, the behavioral immune system is charac- EvolvedPSYCHOLOGICAL social-cognitive mechanisms are thus terized by an adaptive inference bias that minimizes not expected to generate perfect outcomes. Rather, the likelihood of false-negative errors, with the con- the very nature of their design—to avoid errors that, sequence that it makes many false-positive errors generally, are highly reproductively costly—means instead. Thus, even when people have rational that these mechanisms will inevitably generate a dif- knowledge to the contrary, the perception of anoma- ferent set of predictable, but less reproductively lous physical features in other people can triggerAMERICAN costly, errors. aversive responses characterized by disgust© and the automatic activation of disease-relevant semantic “Had” . . . concepts into working memory. These mechanisms The emphasis here is not on the verb itself but on contribute uniquely to prejudices against people the fact that it is expressed in the past tense: had who are obese, elderly, or physicallyPROOFS disabled (Duncan (not has). This is important. It is an empirical ques- & Schaller, 2009; Park, Faulkner, & Schaller, 2003; tion whether any particular psychological phenome- Park, Schaller, & Crandall, 2007) and to ethnocen- non has positive implications for future trism and xenophobia as well (Faulkner, Schaller, reproductive fitness within contemporary ecological Park, & Duncan, 2004; Navarrete & Fessler, 2006). circumstances. Moreover, although this question of The evolutionary logic of error management also current adaptiveness may interest some scholars has implications for sex differences in social infer- who study human behavioral ecology, it is mostly ence biases within cross-sex interactions. Through- irrelevant to scientific inquiry into social cognition. outUNCORRECTED evolutionary history, female mammals have Although there is no reason to assume that any psy- been obligated by physiology to make a larger chological phenomenon has implications for fitness investment per offspring than males (differential within contemporary ecologies, very good reasons parental investment). The maximum number of off- exist to assume that many psychological phenomena spring that a female can produce is also smaller had implications for fitness within enduring (constrained not only by gestation and lactation but ­ancestral ecologies. It is thus misleading to declare

8

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 8 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

that the mind is adaptive and more appropriate to By looking to the ancestral past as a means of recognize that it is adapted—adapted specifically to deducing hypotheses about the psychological present, the kinds of physical and social ecologies that char- an evolutionary approach facilitates discovery of acterized the bulk of human evolutionary history. social-cognitive phenomena unlikely to emerge from Adaptations need not be currently adaptive. other approaches to social cognition. Research on For this reason, the point of departure for most the behavioral immune system offers one example. research in evolutionary social cognition is the Because most social cognition research is conducted identification of a reproductive challenge in within contemporary populations in which the risk ­ancestral ecologies—an enduring feature of local of contracting debilitating infectious diseases is ecological circumstances that either provided an ­minimal—thanks to modern advances in medicine opportunity for enhanced reproductive fitness or and public health systems—it is unsurprising that imposed an obstacle to reproductive fitness. The the subtle influence of disease-avoidant processes on next step is to identify some specific psychological prejudice and person perception remained almost mechanism or mechanisms that might plausibly entirely overlooked. Only by explicitlyASSOCIATION recognizing have addressed that challenge in such a way as to that humans’ nervous systems are adapted to ancient exert positive effects on reproductive fitness and, as ecologies (within which infectious diseases imposed a consequence, to have eventually become wide- tremendous selection pressures on ancestral popula- spread in ancestral populations. Ideally, these lines tions) did these novel social-cognitive phenomena of deductive reasoning yield novel hypotheses begin to be uncovered. about psychological phenomena in contemporary environments. These hypotheses can be tested “Positive Implications for the against empirical data. Reproductive Fitness . . .” Because these hypotheses are logically rooted in AsPSYCHOLOGICAL with other functional approaches to psychology, speculations about the historical past, their a priori evolutionary approaches to social cognition are plausibility depends on the extent to which these based on a cost–benefit calculus. But it is a calculus speculations are themselves plausible or supported of a very specific kind: Costs and benefits are not indirectly by scientific evidence of various kinds defined in terms of affective experiences or self- (Conway & Schaller, 2002; Schmitt & Pilcher, esteem or material resources or any other outcome 2004). Evolutionary hypotheses specifyingAMERICAN sex that might be considered functionally beneficial in a ­differences in mating cognition (e.g., ©Buss, Larsen, merely psychological or economic sense. Rather, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992) these costs and benefits are defined specifically in are informed by physiological and cross-species terms of reproductive fitness—the extent to which ­evidence attesting to the fact that the male–female one’s genes are transmitted to subsequent generations. difference in obligatory parentalPROOFS investment is not a This particular kind of functional approach is con- recent phenomenon but is an extremely ancient and ceptually distinct from traditional psychological enduring characteristic of all mammalian popula- approaches that emphasize motives and goals but is tions. Speculations about social structures of ances- entirely compatible with those approaches as well. tral ecologies (hierarchical relations within groups, Psychological phenomena that are functional in an the nature of intergroup interactions, etc.) are neces- evolutionary sense (because they had positive sarily more speculative but can be informed by ­implications for reproductive fitness in ancestral anthropological and primatological evidence. Evolu- environments) are typically associated with the UNCORRECTEDtionary hypotheses about intergroup cognition are ­psychological experience of emotions, need states, buttressed by extensive ethnographic observations or goal constructs of the sort discussed in the psy- of relations between contemporary human hunter– chological literature on motives and goals (Bargh, gatherer groups and by studies of contemporary Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2010; Kenrick, Griskevicius, nonhuman primate groups as well (Schaller & Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010). For this reason, most ­Neuberg, 2008, 2012). programs of research in evolutionary social cognition

9

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 9 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

fit comfortably within the broader psychological this chapter is devoted to the wide variety of goals ­literature linking affective experiences and goal fundamentally tied to reproductive fitness and their states to social-cognitive phenomena. Reproductive implications for social cognition. fitness is an easily misunderstood concept. Given the prominence of the word reproductive, it is “Of the Genes . . .” ­tempting to presume that—in the human context— There is also another way in which the core concept it pertains specifically to the domain of mating and of reproductive fitness is easily misunderstood: The sexual behavior. This presumption is wrong. underlying logic pertains not to the reproduction of Although the psychology of sexual relationships individual organisms but instead to the reproduction does indeed have implications for reproductive of genes. From an evolutionary perspective, living ­fitness,the same is true for psychological processes organisms (including human beings) are vehicles for operating in other domains of social life as well. genetic replication (Dawkins, 1976). Humans’ For instance, our ancestors were almost certainly ­nervous systems are designed by genes to perform less likely to produce offspring and successfully specific kinds of motor behaviors ASSOCIATION(and to perform raise them to reproductive age if they were excluded them selectively in specific kinds of situations) to from their social group. Consequently, cognitive facilitate the successful reproduction of those genes. responses that promoted the formation (and mainte- Psychological phenomena that had implications nance) of platonic relationships are likely to have for the outcomes of close kin therefore had indirect had positive consequences for reproductive fitness. implications for individuals’ own reproductive One implication is that when the risk of social ­fitness(Hamilton, 1964a, 1964b). This “gene’s-eye” exclusion is salient, people exhibit specific person view of human psychology usefully, and uniquely, perception biases—such as more positive first yields novel discoveries pertaining to the psychology impressions of potential interaction partners—that of kinship—aPSYCHOLOGICAL topic of considerable importance that, promote the establishment of new social connections until recently, was almost entirely overlooked in the (Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, & Schaller, 2007). social psychological literature. Some of this work Also, our ancestors were less likely to produce pertains to overt acts of behavioral decision making offspring if they died at an early age; as a conse- (e.g., decisions to help individuals of varying genetic quence, cognitive processes pertaining to the detec- relatedness; e.g., Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, tion of threats (including social threats) of variousAMERICAN 1994). Other findings pertain to the allocation of kinds had implications for reproductive fitness.© For other kinds of psychological resources (e.g., atten- this reason, evolutionary cost–benefit analyses have tional and emotional investment in the romantic yielded many novel discoveries about attention to, affairs of kin members; A. P. Buunk, Park, & Dubbs, memory for, and inferences about people who pose 2008; Faulkner & Schaller, 2007). Also, given that specific kinds of fitness-relevantPROOFS threats—including, kinship has had important implications for the but not limited to, the threat of interpersonal vio- reproductive fitness of genes, the cognitive mecha- lence, the threat of disease transmission, and the nisms of kin recognition—discussed earlier—have threat of nonreciprocation (Ackerman et al., 2009; had important implications too. Becker, Kenrick, Neuberg, Blackwell, & Smith, A gene’s-eye view also underlies a burgeoning 2007; Buchner, Bell, Mehl, & Musch, 2009; Huang, body of research on female mate preferences and the Sedlovskaya, Ackerman, & Bargh, 2011). manner in which specific preferences vary across a And so on. It has become increasingly clear that woman’s menstrual cycle. The reproductive fitness an enormousUNCORRECTED range of processes pertaining to social of a gene depends not merely on its replication in perception, social inference, and social attitudes are the next generation but also on its replication in likely to have had implications for reproductive fit- each generation that follows. From a gene’s perspective, ness and so can be more deeply and completely it is important not only that people produce off- understood when examined through the lens of evo- spring but that they produce healthy offspring who lutionary inquiry (Neuberg et al., 2010). Much of are likely to grow up to be reproductive adults

10

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 10 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

themselves. And (following from the consequences This principle of phenotypic plasticity has of differential parental investment) this is especially important implications for the development of the the case for genes residing in female bodies. The stimulus–response mechanisms that characterize adaptive implication is that when selecting potential adaptive human psychology. One general implica- mates, women are likely to selectively prefer mates tion is that evolved cognitive mechanisms are likely who are most likely to endow their offspring with to develop differently under different neurochemical “good” genes—genes that environments—as evidenced by the fact that hor- mone levels during development are linked to indi- have an effect on embryonic develop- vidual differences in adult cognition and behavior ment of each successive body in which (Cohen-Bendahan, van de Beek, & Berenbaum, they find themselves, such that that 2005). This adaptive epigenetic process almost cer- body is a little bit more likely to live and tainly accounts for many evolved sex differences in reproduce than it would have been under social cognition. the influence of the rival gene or allele. Another important implication is that evolved (Dawkins, 1976, p. 36) ASSOCIATION social-cognitive mechanisms are likely to manifest Furthermore, given that the reproductive bene- differently under different ecological circumstances, fits of this selective preference for good genes accrue which provides a means of predicting additional only when woman are likely to conceive a child, this individual differences in social cognition and behav- preference is especially likely to be observed during ior and of predicting cultural differences as well. the fertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle. Con- One illustrative program of research has focused on sistent with this analysis, women do selectively dis- regional variability in the prevalence of infectious criminate between potential mates on the basis of diseases and its role in the emergence of cross-cultural good genes—signaled by phenotypic traits such as differencesPSYCHOLOGICAL of various kinds, including cultural bilateral bodily symmetry, muscularity, facial mas- differences in mate preferences, dispositional ten- culinity, and body odor and by behavioral evidence dencies toward extraversion and openness to experi- of creativity and intelligence (G. Miller & Todd, ence, attitudes regarding obedience and conformity, 1998)—and they do so especially during the most and individualistic versus collectivistic social values fertile phase of their menstrual cycles (Gangestad, (Fincher, Thornhill, Murray, & Schaller, 2008; Gan- Thornhill, & Garver-Apgar, 2005; HaseltonAMERICAN & gestad, Haselton, & Buss, 2006; Murray, Trudeau, Miller, 2006; Penton-Voak & Perrett,© 2000). & Schaller, 2011; Schaller & Murray, 2008; for a review, see Schaller & Murray, 2011). This body of research highlights the fact that evolutionary per- “That Make Up the Recipe for spectives on human cognition are compatible with Constructing . . .” PROOFS cross-cultural differences (just as they are with indi- An individual’s genetic makeup can be usefully vidual differences more generally) and that, in fact, ­likened to a complicated recipe in a recipe book. evolutionary analyses provide useful means of pre- This recipe provides instructions for assembling the dicting the origins of cross-cultural differences in phenotypic features of an organism. As with the the first place. ­outcome of any set of instructions, however, the Just as evolved social-cognitive mechanisms are eventual outcome depends fundamentally on that sensitive to features of the immediate situation, then, they are also sensitive to developmental and UNCORRECTEDassembly process—development—and the specific circumstances in which it takes place. This pheno- broader cultural circumstances. Context matters. typic plasticity was itself adaptive because, throughout human evolutionary history, the implication of a “The Human Nervous System” particular phenotypic trait on reproductive fitness We return again to the phrase we began with (see was likely to have varied depending on local “The Human Nervous System . . .” section), but here circumstances. we draw attention to a different piece of the phrase:

11

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 11 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

nervous system. This choice of words is deliberate, (e.g., competitive actions and other status-enhancing for two reasons. displays; e.g., Archer, 2006; Mazur & Booth, 1998) First, when we talk about the nervous system, we that, historically, positioned males to have greater are talking about anatomy and physiology. Although access to mates. In contrast, men show reduced pro- most research on social cognition proceeds without duction of testosterone after those life events—such explicit attention to human anatomy and physiology, as the birth of offspring—that represent an adaptive an evolutionary approach to social cognition shift in motivational priorities away from mate reminds researchers that psychological phenomena acquisition and toward parental care instead (Gray, must, eventually, be connected to the biological Kahlenberg, Barrett, Lipson, & Ellison, 2002). entities that make up the organisms that genes build In sum, the mind is embedded in the body, and as a means of reproducing themselves. Thus, people think about others so that they might act whereas traditional approaches to social cognition toward them in ways that would have improved the provide a principled agenda for integrating the odds, in humans’ ancestral history, of facilitating social with the cognitive sciences, an evolutionary their reproductive fitness. ASSOCIATION approach provides a principled agenda for further integrating the social and cognitive sciences with the Stereotypic Misconceptions Briefly Noted biological sciences as well. and Corrected Second, when we talk about the nervous system, The preceding elements underlie the logic of an we are talking about more than just the brain. The ­evolutionary approach to social cognition. Before nervous system extends throughout the entire body. moving on, it is useful to address directly several This is important because humans’ nervous systems ways in which these elements contradict common (including their brains) are not designed merely to misconceptions of the evolutionary approach. make sense of perceptions and to draw inferences First,PSYCHOLOGICAL the evolutionary approach neither assumes, and to arrive at judgments about the world around nor requires, human cognition and behavior to be them, they are also designed to translate these cog- biologically determined or inflexible. To the con- nitive responses into adaptive action—muscle move- trary, evolved mechanisms are phenotypically plas- ments that, historically, had beneficial implications tic in development and functionally flexible in for reproductive fitness. From an evolutionary per- application. Although genes provide a recipe for spective, social cognition operates in service AMERICANto assembling an individual, the developmental actual behavior. © ­context—for example, the neurochemical environ- For this reason, evolutionary inquiries into ment in utero and early learning experiences— human social cognition can be abetted not only by shapes the expression of evolved mechanisms in the the tools of cognitive neuroscience (which focus on resulting person. Moreover, different local and cultural that part of the nervous systemPROOFS that resides inside the contexts engage some evolved mechanisms in the skull) but perhaps even more so by the tools of ­individual’s repertoire more than do others. Processes behavioral neuroscience, which focus on a broader of development, learning, and culture are inherent to set of physiological systems that manifest through- an evolutionary approach to psychology. From an evo- out the entire body and are implicated in the pro- lutionary approach, context—developmental, learning, duction of fitness-relevant behavior. One illustrative social, and cultural—matters. line of research focuses on testosterone as an impor- Second, it is sometimes assumed that the presence tant link in the causal chain of events connecting of cultural differences in a psychological phenome- social-cognitiveUNCORRECTED processes to adaptive behavior. For non is evidence against an evolutionary explana- example, the mere perception (through olfactory tion for it. The evolutionary approach does assume cues) of ovulating women leads to increased pro- that the basic mechanisms of human psychology duction of testosterone within the bodies of male will be ­universal across normally developing indi- perceivers (S. L. Miller & Maner, 2010b). This neu- viduals. However, the approach does not assume rochemical response facilitates the sorts of behaviors that these universals will reveal themselves, across

12

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 12 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

cultures, as similarities at the level of readily of psychological mechanisms—learning, memory, observed behavior. Cultures can provide different and other elements of cognition. Dawkins reminds developmental, ­learning, and social contexts for readers that, although genes design and build bodies their members, and these differences can shape with the capacity to behave in fitness-enhancing how psychological universals play out. Indeed, dif- ways, genes cannot exert immediate control over ferences at a surface level of analysis can, and often those bodies’ behaviors in any given instant. Genes do, reflect universal mechanisms operating at a are many causal steps removed from any specific act deeper level of analysis (Norenzayan et al., 2006). of cognition or behavior. It is for this reason that Moreover, many of the processes by which cultural there evolved sophisticated nervous systems: differences emerge—for example, social learning— “Genes are the primary policy makers,” wrote are themselves evolved psychological mechanisms Dawkins (1976, p. 19), but “brains are the (Henrich & Boyd, 1998; Moore, 2004) evident not executives.” only in human infants (e.g., Mumme & Fernald, Bargh and Huang (2009) paid explicit homage 2003) but also in ­nonhuman primates (e.g., Cook to this point in a chapter cheekilyASSOCIATION titled “The Self- & Mineka, 1990). ish Goal.” They observe that if brains are the exec- Third, people sometimes assume that for a psy- utors of the genes’ reproductive objectives, then chological mechanism to be an evolved adaptation it “goal pursuits . . . are the executive processes of must operate optimally, without error. The sup- the brain” (Bargh & Huang, 2009, p. 131). More- posed corollary of this is that any mechanism that over, when a goal is activated, it can be considered operates imperfectly must thus not be an adaptation. just as metaphorically selfish as a gene: “Active Neither of these is correct. As we discussed, natural goals single-mindedly pursue their agenda inde- selection is not a forward-looking process seeking to pendently of whether doing so is in the overall create perfect social-cognitive mechanisms but goodPSYCHOLOGICAL of the individual person” (Bargh & Huang, rather a winnowing process eliminating less-good 2009, p. 131). And, just as people have no con- mechanisms. Moreover, although evolved adapta- scious awareness of the enormous impact that tions were historically relatively beneficial (com- genes have on their behavior, they are often pared with alternatives) across individuals in a entirely unaware of the implicit impact that population, this does not mean that they ever led, or motives and goals have on attention, perception, would be expected to lead, to mistake-freeAMERICAN behavior cognition, judgment, and behavior. at the level of the individual. Furthermore,© because An evolutionary perspective on social cognition adapted mechanisms were designed to eliminate the implies even deeper—and not merely analogical— most costly of mistakes, they will inevitably generate connections between genetic reproduction and the other (albeit less historically costly) mistakes. Last, impact of goals on human psychology. There are such mechanisms were selectedPROOFS to address problems countless goal states that humans might experience, and circumstances of the ancestral past; to the many of which are specific to particular people, par- extent that the present is fundamentally different, ticular objects, or particular contemporary contexts those adaptations would not be expected to be (the desire for a new car, the objective to adhere to ­currently adaptive. a gluten-free diet, etc.). There is no reason to sup- pose that every goal state had implications for genetic reproduction, but there is every reason to THE SELFISH GENE MEETS THE SELFISH suppose that some goal states did and that they GOAL: EVOLUTION, MOTIVATION, AND UNCORRECTED reflect the operation of a smaller set of adaptive SOCIAL COGNITION motivational systems that evolved because—by Richard Dawkins’s (1976) book The Selfish Gene is influencing perception, cognition, judgment, and deservedly famous for its forceful presentation of behavior in specific ways—they facilitated the the gene’s-eye view of behavior. More important, it reproduction of the genes that built those motiva- is a view that explicitly highlights the adaptive role tional systems.

13

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 13 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

A New Pyramid of Fundamental Human It is useful to note that, whereas research and Motives theorizing in social cognition has traditionally Just which motivational systems might plausibly be focused on goals related to epistemics (e.g., accuracy, evolutionarily fundamental and have important con- belief confirmation) or self-regard (e.g., enhancement, sequences for social cognition? Kenrick, Griskevi- verification, affirmation), an evolutionary approach cius, et al. (2010) attempted to address this question brings into relief a very different set of goals—those by revisiting Maslow’s (1943) famous pyramid of fundamental to solving the long-recurring and tan- human needs and renovating it to reflect a more gible physical and social challenges faced by contemporary approach to human motivation humans. Four of these goals, in particular—disease informed not only by principles of cognitive activa- avoidance, resource acquisition, mate retention, and tion and development but also by the logic of evolu- child rearing—have traditionally received little tionary biology. This logic demands that any truly research attention, yet one would be hard pressed to fundamental motive must have had clear implica- suggest that they are not focal to many everyday tions for reproductive fitness in ancestral ecologies lives. Indeed, they may even dominateASSOCIATION people’s and must have universal relevance to human beings motivational hierarchies during certain life stages. (Schaller, Neuberg, Griskevicius, & Kenrick, 2010). Recognition of these oversights is one of many novel Enhancing reproductive fitness implies much contributions of the evolutionary approach. more than merely finding sex partners and copulat- ing. Reproductive fitness also requires that individu- Motive Activation and Adapted Social als survive to reproductive age, which, for our Cognition ancestors, meant avoiding predation, avoiding dis- These fundamental motivational systems may vary ease, and acquiring nutrition and other resources. (across individuals, across ecological contexts) in Moreover, humans have long been highly ultrasocial the extentPSYCHOLOGICAL to which they are chronically activated. animals, with their outcomes highly dependent on Evolutionary cost–benefit calculations can be highly the actions of others (Brewer, 2001; D. T. Campbell, useful for predicting the exact nature of these differ- 1982; Richerson & Boyd, 1995). Our ancestors thus ences in chronic activation—and thus for predicting needed to address the challenges inherent to social differences in their downstream effects on cognition affiliation and status seeking successfully. Moreover, and behavior. For example, the evolutionary logic of human young mature quite slowly to accommodateAMERICAN differential parental investment implies differences the learning of complex and often subtle informa-© between men and women in chronic activation of tion and behaviors needed to manage interdepen- motives pertaining to mate acquisition, which, in dent ultrasociality (e.g., Dunbar, 2003). Survival turn, implies predictable sex differences in person throughout this lengthy period of immaturity would perception and person memory (we discuss many have been impossible in the PROOFSabsence of parental examples). Predictable developmental differences in investment in child rearing, thereby selecting for a chronic activation of these motivational states also parental inclination—in both mothers and fathers— exist. The motivational system pertaining to mate to enhance their inclusive fitness via care for their acquisition is likely to be more chronically activated young. The fitness benefits of dual-parent invest- among people in their teens and 20s than among ment would have pulled for long-term parental pair people in later stages of life, and the motivational bonding, making the challenge of mate retention an system pertaining to parental care is likely to be more chronically activated among people who are importantUNCORRECTED one. These goal domains—self-protection, disease avoidance, resource acquisition, social affili- actually parents of young children. These differ- ation, status acquisition, mate seeking, mate reten- ences in chronic goal activation are signaled by pre- tion, and child rearing—are thus fundamental in the dictable differences in neurochemistry (e.g., hormonal sense that they have long been arenas of challenge to changes associated with the onset of parenthood; reproductive fitness faced by humans (Kenrick, Hahn-Holbrook, Holbrook, & Haselton, 2011) and Griskevicius, et al., 2010). have implications for a wide range of life stage–related

14

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 14 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

differences in attitudes and social cognition. Clear and accepts, in its biases, and in the decisional and individual differences in chronic activation exist as a behavioral outcomes it generates (e.g., Barrett & result of the same general factors (e.g., genetic pre- Kurzban, 2006). dispositions, socialization experiences) that lead to The evolutionary approach thus anticipates that individual differences of any kind. As you will see, information processing is directed preferentially measures assessing individual differences in chronic toward those specific people in one’s social motivations usefully predict important outcomes in environment—and­ to specific features of those the realm of attitudes and social cognition. ­people—that are most logically relevant, in an In addition to variation in chronic activation, ancestral sense, to one’s currently active fundamental these evolutionarily fundamental motivational sys- goals. Social cognition is a tool for managing the tems are more likely to be temporarily activated in ­fitness-relevantopportunities and threats afforded some situations than in others, simply as a result of by other people (Gibson, 1979; McArthur & Baron, perceptual exposure to contextual information 1983; G. Miller, 2007; Neuberg, Becker, & Kenrick, implying goal-relevant threats and opportunities. 2013). Social cognition is thusASSOCIATION inherently, and Cues suggesting vulnerability to predatory danger always, motivated social cognition. Consistent with temporarily activate a self-protective motive. Cues this, the research we review in this chapter demon- suggesting vulnerability to the transmission of infec- strates that the fundamental motive most salient at tious pathogens temporarily activate a disease- any moment shapes what people perceive in their avoidance motive. Cues suggesting the presence of social environments, where they focus their atten- an available sex partner temporarily activate a mat- tion, how they interpret ambiguous information, ing motive. Cues suggesting the presence of a desir- which information they remember, how they man- able same-sex competitor temporarily activate a age possible errors in ­decision making, and the like. mate-retention motive, and so on. When any evolu- PSYCHOLOGICAL tionarily fundamental motivational system is tempo- Self-Protection rarily activated (even by the kinds of obviously To enhance one’s reproductive fitness, one must artificial means typically used in laboratory experi- survive long enough either to produce offspring who ments), it is expected to have cognitive conse- themselves survive to reproduce successfully or to quences of the sort that, in ancestral ecologies, facilitate the survival and reproduction of geneti- facilitated adaptive behavioral outcomes AMERICAN(Kenrick, cally close relatives. In line with the evolutionary Neuberg, Griskevicius, Becker, & Schaller,© 2010). view that cognitive processes will generally be biased toward enhancing reproductive fitness, infor- mation related to survival is likely to receive certain Functional Modularity and Domain- processing advantages. For example, people better Specific InformationPROOFS Processing remember lists of items when the items are viewed This evolutionary approach to motivation implies a as relevant to survival (e.g., Kostic, McFarlan, & shift away from the idea that the mind is a domain- Cleary, 2012; Nairne & Pandeirada, 2008, 2010). general information processor. Humans descended Survival encompasses several motives, including from those who generated relatively better solu- self-protection, disease avoidance, and resource tions for accomplishing these fundamental goals acquisition, and one would expect these different (Bugental, 2000; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003). motivational systems to be sensitive to different cues Because these goals are qualitatively distinct and in the environment, use different information to UNCORRECTEDrequire distinct solutions—the solutions to the generate responses and decisions, and so forth. We challenge of finding a suitable mate, for instance, begin with the self-protection system. are quite different than the solutions to the chal- Historically, many threats to physical safety lenge of retaining these mates—the brain would came from acts of nature and nonhuman predators. have evolved to be functionally modular and One would thus expect natural selection to favor domain specific in the informational inputs it seeks genes that inclined our ancestors to bias their

15

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 15 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

­cognition toward effectively processing such threats. ­identify angry faces in their local environment Consistent with this, people are more accurate and (Becker et al., 2007). faster at detecting changes in animals (that posed Adult men and women have long differed in threats in ancestral ecologies) than at detecting both their capacities and their inclinations to do sig- changes in cars and trucks (that pose threats only in nificant physical harm, with men, on average, pos- modern environments), even though, for the partic- ing a greater threat of violence (A. Campbell, 2005; ipant population, the vehicles pose a much greater Daly & Wilson, 1988). Given this sex difference in daily threat to safety (New, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2007). behavioral inclination, the great costs of being vic- Similarly, contemporary humans more readily learn timized by violence, and the cue value of angry to associate shock-induced anxiety with ancestrally facial expressions, one might hypothesize an incli- relevant threats (e.g., snakes) than with contempo- nation for humans to readily detect anger especially rary, but evolutionarily irrelevant, threats (e.g., bro- in the faces of adult men. In fact, research has ken electrical outlets). Moreover, this “prepared revealed that perceivers more quickly and accu- learning” of fear of ancestral threats is more resis- rately identify male (vs. female) facesASSOCIATION as angry and tant to extinction—that is, it is especially hard to that angry expressions facilitate the identification of unlearn—even though the modern threats afford faces as male (vs. female; Becker et al., 2007). These greater risks of death in today’s world (e.g., Öhman results are not readily explained by a more general & Mineka, 2001). inclination toward enhanced or effective processing Many threats to physical safety arise from inten- of adult men (vs. women), because adult women, tional acts of aggression from other humans. who have historically differed from men in their Assaults and murders, although not common to greater capacity and inclination to provide succor- everyday social interaction, nonetheless occur with ance, are processed in a complementary way: Per- substantial frequency throughout the modern world. ceiversPSYCHOLOGICAL more quickly and accurately identify adult Homicide rates within hunter–gatherer groups—many female faces as happy (an expression consistent of which occupy ecologies similar to the ones in with succorance), and happy expressions facilitate which our ancestors evolved—are high as well the identification of faces as female. These results (Chagnon, 1988), and intergroup conflict appears to are also not readily explained by learned sex stereo- have long characterized ancestral humans, as well as types: When androgynous faces are dressed in chimpanzees and other primate species (Haas,AMERICAN 1990; ­sex-typed male versus female clothing, they are Pinker, 2011; Schaller & Neuberg, 2008; ©Wrang- ­perceived as stereotypically masculine or feminine ham, 1987). It is clear that aggression at the hands but not as correspondingly angry or happy (Becker of other humans has been a long-recurring challenge et al., 2007). faced by humans. To address this challenge, it is Corroborating such findings, work on illusory likely that humans evolved aPROOFS precautionary self-­ conjunctions has demonstrated that, at the very protection system that is (a) attuned to cues sug- early stages of visual perception, angry expressions gesting the possibility of intentional physical harm on one face are especially likely to “leap onto” adja- from others and (b) equipped with affective, cogni- cent, emotionally unexpressive adult male (versus tive, and behavioral inclinations designed to reduce female) faces (Neel, Becker, Neuberg, & Kenrick, such threats when perceived (Neuberg, Kenrick, & 2012). Such findings have revealed that perceiving Schaller, 2011). cues that heuristically imply physical safety threat— Anger often precedes intentional physical aggres- such as angry facial expressions—leads to very rapid sionUNCORRECTED and is often cued by readily and universally perceptual shifts biased toward creating the kinds of identified facial expressions (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, better-safe-than-sorry outcomes predicted by the 1975; Zebrowitz, Kikuchi, & Fellous, 2010). Facial smoke detector principle: If a target is male, err expressions are thus a heuristically useful, if imper- toward perceiving any nearby anger as belonging to fect, cue of impending threat to physical safety, and him; if a facial expression is angry, err toward per- perceivers are indeed quite quick to detect and ceiving its expresser as male.

16

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 16 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Another feature likely to cue an individual’s the occurrence—and nonoccurrence—of the out-group ­concern with physical safety is out-group member- homogeneity bias in recognition memory (in which ship: Consistent with both theorizing and empirical people more accurately distinguish between faces of ­findingsin humans and closely related primates, in-group members than faces of ­out-group members; members of coalitional groups—in particular, young e.g., Anthony, Copper, & ­Mullen, 1992; Chance & out-group men—have long been inclined toward Goldstein, 1996). From an evolutionary perspective, intergroup aggression (Daly & Wilson, 1988; limited processing resources should be allocated Keegan, 1993; Keeley, 1996; Kelly, 2005; Navarrete, selectively to process information about individuals McDonald, Molina, & Sidanius, 2010; Schaller & who afford significant fitness implications for one- Neuberg, 2008; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius & self. Historically, those individuals would have been Veniegas, 2000; Van Vugt, De Cremer, & Janssen, members of one’s own coalitional in-group, with 2007; Wrangham & Peterson, 1996). This inclina- whom one regularly shares resources and pools tion suggests that the processing of out-group men efforts, mates, and so forth. One might thus expect ought to be particularly prone to the self-protective a default processing advantageASSOCIATION for in-group mem- biases. Much evidence for this exists, especially bers, which would manifest in greater recognition when the cue to out-groupness is race. It is useful to accuracy for in-group faces than for out-group faces. note, however, that such race biases tend to be Individuals expressing anger should also attract greatly reduced when perceivers can readily identify ­considerable processing resources. In fact, given other, more useful markers for out-group coalitional that out-group members have historically posed a status (Kurzban, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2001) or have greater threat of hostile attack than in-group mem- reason to see themselves as sharing a meaningful bers (because interdependency within groups tends coalitional membership with other-race individuals to inhibit the progression from anger to actual vio- (Van Bavel & Cunningham, 2009). Findings such as lence)PSYCHOLOGICAL and because angry facial expressions are these further suggest that coalitional out-groupness, ­fleeting(whereas hostile intent may endure), the rather than race or ethnicity per se, serves as the faces of angry out-group men may be especially critical psychological construct underlying self-­ likely to attract perceptual processing of individuat- protective processing. ing features—and­ thus be especially likely to be rec- We mentioned earlier the concept of prepared ognized later. This line of reasoning implies that the associative learning—the evolved inclinationAMERICAN to out-group homogeneity bias in recognition memory acquire and maintain associations that© were ances- might be eliminated, and even reversed, in the trally relevant to reproductive fitness more readily ­context of angry faces. Indeed, across a series of than associations that were less ancestrally relevant studies, White participants exhibited the typical to reproductive fitness. For instance, people are bio- ­out-group homogeneity recognition bias when logically prepared to acquirePROOFS readily a fear response encountering neutrally expressive faces—better to snakes, which represented a significant threat in ­recognizing previously seen White faces than Black ancestral primate ecologies (Öhman & Mineka, 2001). faces—but showed no such homogeneity bias, and People are also particularly efficient at learning, and sometimes even a reversed out-group heterogeneity particularly inefficient at unlearning, fearful bias, when the faces bore angry expressions responses to coalitional out-groups (Olsson, Ebert, ­(Ackerman et al., 2006). Banaji, & Phelps, 2005). Consistent with reasoning We have shown that self-protection concerns can be about the special threats posed by out-group men, activated by certain features of individuals—for exam- UNCORRECTEDthis effect is specific to out-group male, but not ple, angry expressions, maleness, out-groupness—that female, targets (Navarrete et al., 2009). serve to direct subsequent, additional goal-oriented In addition to biases in associative learning, processing toward them. Perceivers may also encounter ­people are also particularly cognitively attuned to potential physical safety threats with a self-protection out-group men, especially if other cues suggest hos- concern already active—either because it is chronically tility, which has intriguing implications for predicting active, as a disposition, or because it has been acutely

17

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 17 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

activated by a recent event or the immediate context. likely to categorize racially ambiguous angry male Indeed, because selectively engaging and directing cog- faces as Black when dispositionally concerned with nitive processing is costly—metabolically, as well in danger and experimentally placed in a fear-inducing terms of opportunity costs (if one directs cognitive pro- context (watching a clip from the filmThe Silence cessing to achieve one goal, one is not using those of the Lambs in a dark room vs. a control clip in a resources to achieve other desirable goals)—the kinds well-lit room). Vulnerability to threat leads perceivers of biases we have discussed should be especially likely to view heuristically threatening others as ­out-group to emerge when one’s history of experiences or current members. circumstances ­suggest a special vulnerability. For Self-protection concern elicits other biases as instance, with respect to nonhuman threats, snakes are well. In another set of studies, White perceivers for more readily detected by people who are disposition- whom self-protection goals were experimentally ally anxious (Öhman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001), and engaged (via film clip) “saw” anger in the neutrally sudden noises produce more exaggerated fear expressive faces of Black men (Maner et al., 2005). responses among ­people who are in the dark and The specificity of this error is intriguingASSOCIATION and sup- thus feel temporarily vulnerable (Grillon, Pellowski, portive of the evolutionary logic discussed here: The Merikangas, & Davis, 1997). self-protection manipulation did not merely engage We discussed earlier that, at early stages of visual a broad negativity bias in perception because it did processing, angry facial expressions are dispropor- not lead perceivers to see other negative emotions tionately likely to be mistakenly perceived as on the Black male faces; it did not merely engage a belonging to male faces (Neel et al, 2012). Similarly, general bias to see anger in men because it did not angry facial expressions in a crowd are especially lead the White perceivers to see anger in the faces of likely to be misperceived by Whites as belonging on White men; and it did not merely engage a bias to the faces of young Black men (relative to young see angerPSYCHOLOGICAL in out-group members because it did not White men). Of note here, this illusory conjunction lead perceivers to see anger in the faces of Black is especially likely to occur for perceivers who dis- women. Rather, this bias was calibrated to prepare positionally believe the world to be dangerous—that perceivers to address specifically the greatest pre- is, for those chronically concerned with self-protection sumed threat to physical safety—out-group men. (Becker, Neel, & Anderson, 2010). According to the logic of the smoke detector princi- Consider also the process in which perceiversAMERICAN ple, it is better to err by viewing a benign individual categorize ambiguous individuals as belonging© to as potentially threatening than to view a potentially either an in-group or an out-group. Out-group dangerous individual (as heuristically implied by ­members—especially out-group men—have histori- out-group male status) as safe. The same psychol- cally posed special dangers to physical safety. Fol- ogy likely underlies biases exhibited in the shoot– lowing the smoke detector principlePROOFS of “better safe don’t shoot experimental paradigm, in which White than sorry,” it would have been adaptive to err on perceivers confronted with targets posed with a the side of categorizing a stranger as an out-group weapon (or not) exhibit biases toward shooting member than as an in-group member—and to do so Black men and toward not shooting Black women especially under circumstances that heuristically and Whites of either sex (Plant, Goplen, & connote threat. S. L. Miller, Maner, and Becker Kunstman, 2011). (2010; see also Maner, Miller, Moss, Leo, & Plant, Other research has further demonstrated the 2012) found that non-Black participants were espe- nuanced processing in which protection-minded ciallyUNCORRECTED likely to categorize targets as Black when the perceivers engage. As we have discussed, those who targets displayed heuristic cues to threat (masculine are believed to be aggressive—by virtue of imper- voices and body movements, movement toward the fectly diagnostic features such as maleness, angry perceiver, angry facial expressions). They also found expressions, and out-group membership—tend to that independently activated self-protection concerns receive processing biased toward erring on the side had similar effects: White participants were especially of making the perceiver aware of potential danger.

18

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 18 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Given the tangible costs imposed by physically they dispositionally perceived the world to be a dan- aggressive individuals, it should be no surprise that gerous place and were temporarily in the dark— a set of such processing biases exists (in prepared exhibited greater activation of danger-connoting learning, detection of emotional expressions, catego- stereotypes of ethnic out-groups (Schaller, Park, & rization, recognition memory, etc.) and appears to Faulkner, 2003; Schaller, Park, & Mueller, 2003). work in a redundant and precautionary manner to As with the functional specificity explicit in other prepare perceivers for the dangers such men are studies, the activation of these stereotypes under believed to pose (Neuberg et al., 2011). Exceptions physical safety threat was specific to stereotypes to this functional redundancy should exist, how- related to safety threat but not to equally negative ever, sensitive both to the functional needs of the but threat-irrelevant stereotypes. In fact, some perceiver and to the costs of redundancy. For ­studies (e.g., Schaller & Abeysinghe, 2006) have instance, although visually attending to out-group revealed that feelings of vulnerability may lead men can potentially provide useful information simultaneously to greater activation of a specific about their intentions, such visual attention may be kind of negative stereotype (connotingASSOCIATION hostility and viewed by the target as intrusive or challenging, per- aggression) and to greater activation of a specific haps inviting the aggression that one fears. How kind of positive stereotype (connoting intelligence should one manage such a dilemma? White partici- and overall competence). This pattern of results is pants in two studies who were experimentally inexplicable in many traditional social psychological primed to be concerned with self-protection (or not) theories of stereotypes and prejudice but makes per- became increasingly efficient at encoding Black and fect sense within the functional perspective outlined Arab male targets: Without increasing their visual here because, compared with an incompetent attention to their faces, they nonetheless identified aggressor, a competent aggressor poses a greater them quite well (compared with similar foils) in a threatPSYCHOLOGICAL to physical safety. When the self-protection subsequent surprise recognition test. As with other motivational system is activated, it does not simply findings discussed earlier, this encoding efficiency activate negative beliefs about out-group members; was functionally focused: It emerged only in the rather, it activates a particular constellation of ste- processing of out-group male targets, not with reotypical beliefs that are most likely to facilitate a White male or Black or Arab female targets—that is, functional response to the implied fitness threat. only for targets stereotyped as dangerousAMERICAN (Becker, In sum, being concerned for one’s safety leads ­Anderson, et al., 2010). © people to process social information in functionally Research has shown that threat-relevant stereo- focused, nuanced ways. As we show, activating types of out-group members are especially likely to other motives fundamental to reproductive fitness bias processing of these individuals when perceivers leads to processing biases that are similarly focused are in a self-protective statePROOFS of mind. Other research and similarly nuanced. has shown that possessing such concerns in fact activates such stereotypes in the first place. In line Disease Avoidance with evidence that intergroup contact was likely to Reproductive fitness is threatened by others’ poten- be associated with an increased chance of interper- tial for violence. It is also threatened by others’ abil- sonal aggression and physical injury (Schaller & ity to spread disease. The physical proximity created Neuberg, 2008) and following from the smoke by highly interdependent sociality potentially puts detector principle, one might expect adaptations to one in contact with disease-causing pathogens oth- UNCORRECTEDevolve that would incline individuals to generate or ers may harbor on or within their bodies—a threat bring to mind beliefs about out-group members as that imposed powerful selection pressures on ances- violent and dangerous, especially when circum- tral populations (e.g., Ewald, 1994; Wolfe, Dunavan, stances imply that one is vulnerable to danger. & Diamond, 2007). One solution to the threat of Indeed, across a series of experiments, participants pathogen exposure has been the evolution of a who felt particularly vulnerable to threat—because highly sophisticated immune system, designed to

19

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 19 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

fight off pathogens once they have infected the because reproductive fitness is generally better body. A second solution has been the evolution of a served by mistakenly avoiding a healthy person than behavioral immune system, designed to proactively by mistakenly approaching a pathogen-ridden one. avoid infection in the first place by detecting Indeed, physical unattractiveness of any kind ­disease-causing pathogens in the immediate envi- appears to serve as a crude cue for pathogen pres- ronment (including those in people) and then facili- ence (Zebrowitz, Fellous, Mignault, & Andreoletti, tating avoidance of those pathogens (Schaller, 2011; 2003). Thus, social perceivers view and respond to Schaller & Duncan, 2007; Schaller & Park, 2011). many truly healthy but superficially anomalous- Because most pathogens are not visible to the looking individuals as though they were carriers of human eye, it has historically been nearly impossible infectious disease. to determine directly whether another person poses The face plays a critical role in person perception an infectious disease threat. Rather, people must use given its ability to communicate functionally impor- perceptible cues to infection to infer pathogen pres- tant information via emotional expressions and ence. Even this is difficult, however. Many species of morphological features that heuristicallyASSOCIATION imply the pathogens exist, and they produce many different bearer’s genetic relatedness or coalitional member- perceptible symptoms. Moreover, because patho- ship. The face is also where many infectious diseases gens evolve rapidly, these specific symptoms are leave cues to their presence in the forms of rashes, ever changing, and different people may exhibit dif- other forms of facial discoloration, running noses, ferent symptoms even when infected with the iden- weepy eyes, and the like. One would thus suspect tical pathogen. It would thus be impossible for a that facial anomalies—even those not symptomatic psychological system to acquire a full catalog of the of disease but heuristically viewed as such—would specific observable symptoms that accompany infec- inspire wariness, especially among perceivers who tious diseases. However, such a system can take feel vulnerablePSYCHOLOGICAL to infection. One experiment advantage of the fact that, as a more general charac- revealed that abnormal-looking faces (because they teristic of infection, pathogens often reveal them- bore a port-wine stain or a misaligned eye) held a selves by altering the body’s morphology and motor disproportionate amount of perceiver attention behavior—for example, by creating poxes, rashes, ­(relative to unblemished faces) and that this was and coughing spasms. Humans thus appear to have especially the case for perceivers exposed to a slide evolved a psychological precautionary systemAMERICAN show designed to evoke disease-avoidance concerns designed to detect not a list of specific deviations© (Ackerman et al., 2009). Other work has shown that from typical morphology and movement but rather having had a recent illness—which actually makes a the presence of any deviation from typical morphol- person more vulnerable to subsequent infection— ogy and movement. It then uses anomalous appear- also makes one especially wary of those who exhibit ance to implicitly connote thePROOFS presence of infectious heuristic cues to pathogen presence (S. L. Miller & disease (Kurzban & Leary, 2001; Oaten, Stevenson, Maner, 2011a): People who reported recent illness & Case, 2011) and engage a set of functionally rele- (colds, flu) were more visually attentive, and exhib- vant affective and cognitive responses to facilitate ited stronger avoidant motor responses, to behavioral avoidance of the individual apparently ­disfiguredfaces. posing the threat. The behavioral immune system also shapes how Of course, many physical anomalies are nondiag- social perceivers categorize and remember those nostic of contagion risk, for example, facial disfig- around them. In a series of experiments focusing on urementUNCORRECTED caused by accident or violence, most obesity and old age as heuristic cues to pathogen physical disabilities involving movement disorders, presence, perceivers who were motivated to avoid and obesity. Nonetheless, following the smoke disease—either because they dispositionally viewed detector principle, perceivers overinfer and use themselves as vulnerable to infection or because these anomalies as heuristic indicators of risk (Park experimental manipulations made disease threat et al., 2003, 2007; Schaller & Duncan, 2007) salient—demonstrated robust disease overperception

20

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 20 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

biases (S. L. Miller & Maner, 2012). For example, greater risk for acquiring and communicating dis- when making quick categorization judgments, per- ease, morphologically anomalous cues unrelated per ceivers set lower thresholds for identifying target se to risk of disease transmission—wrinkles, skin individuals as being obese rather than normal discolorations—are sufficient to engage people’s weight: They were unlikely to misperceive obese ­disease-relevant prejudices and stereotypes. The people as being of normal weight and more likely to behavioral immune system errs toward viewing misperceive normal-weight people as being obese. morphologically abnormal individuals as diseased. They also exhibited a leniency bias in memory, err- The role that disease avoidance motivation plays ing in the direction of recognizing obese target indi- in prejudice may go well beyond targeting those viduals they had not, in fact, seen before. When who are morphologically abnormal to targeting indi- concerned about disease, the behavioral immune viduals who apparently belong to coalitional out-groups. system calibrates categorization and memory pro- Members of coalitional out-groups pose many possi- cesses toward making the least costly error—toward ble threats, including threats of violence, as we dis- representing and remembering those presenting cussed earlier. They may, however,ASSOCIATION also pose threats even heuristic cues to contagious disease as posing to health via transmission of disease. For example, an infection threat rather than as not. outsiders may be unaware of local norms related to Other lines of research have revealed that the food preparation and personal hygiene that reduce desire to avoid disease activates prejudices and ste- the likelihood of pathogen transmission among reotypical inferences about groups of people who group members; being more likely to violate these possess cues heuristically implying disease. For norms, they may increase the risk of pathogen example, people who dispositionally feel vulnerable transmission within the local population. More- to infection are more negative toward obese individ- over, contact with exotic people increases contact uals, even controlling for other prejudice-relevant withPSYCHOLOGICAL pathogens to which local individuals have not individual differences (Park et al., 2007). Moreover, evolved immune defenses and that are thus espe- when vulnerability to infection is made temporarily cially virulent (e.g., it is estimated that nearly 75% salient via experimental manipulation, perceivers of the population of what is now Mexico was deci- exaggerate their tendency to associate obese people mated by pathogens brought over by Europeans in with the concept of disease (Park et al., 2007). Age- the 1500s; Dobson & Carter, 1996). People who are ism is also exaggerated when perceivers feelAMERICAN espe- subjectively perceived to be foreign are thus likely cially vulnerable to infection: Research© participants to be implicitly viewed as posing the threat of who felt especially vulnerable to infection—either infection and so may be targeted for prejudices, because of chronically high feelings of vulnerability especially when people are, or merely perceive or because the threat of infection was made tempo- themselves to be, vulnerable to infection. This is rarily salient—expressedPROOFS higher levels of implicit indeed the case. ageism (Duncan & Schaller, 2009). These findings For example, after viewing a slide show depicting regarding obesity and age are especially compelling pathogens and the threat of infection (compared demonstrations that the behavioral immune system with a control slide show depicting disease-irrelevant is attuned to a broad range of morphological abnor- threats), participants in one experiment exhibited an malities that go well beyond the specific symptoms exaggerated preference for immigrants from familiar actually diagnostic of contagious disease. Obesity, places relative to immigrants from subjectively for- for instance, was likely rare in ancestral ecologies— eign parts of the world (Faulkner et al., 2004). In a UNCORRECTEDhistorically, diseased individuals were likely similar vein, English speakers in two experiments ­underweight—and even though obesity is common who were dispositionally disgusted by pathogens in contemporary human societies it is rarely diag- became especially likely to perceive foreign-accented nostic of pathogen infection. Moreover, although speakers of English as subjectively dissimilar when elderly people’s immune systems are relatively com- disease concerns were also made salient (Reid et al., promised, meaning that they are indeed at somewhat 2012). These results demonstrate that people exhibit

21

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 21 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

greater ethnocentrism and xenophobia when they are associated with an individual’s history of unstable feel vulnerable to infection. Interestingly, people physical development, infection by pathogens, and also exhibit greater ethnocentrism and xenophobia heritable genetic abnormalities (e.g., Møller & when they objectively are vulnerable to infection. Thornhill, 1998). Perceivers might thus use facial During the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman’s symmetry as a heuristic cue that others are relatively body is naturally immunosuppressed (so as not to free of or resistant to pathogens and thus are rela- reject the fetus), creating a temporarily enhanced tively safe to interact with. Consistent with this, vulnerability to infection. Functionally adaptive research participants from several studies who were responses to this vulnerability include morning sick- especially concerned with disease—either disposi- ness and greater disgust sensitivity (Fessler, Eng, & tionally or because such concerns were experimen- Navarrete, 2005; Flaxman & Sherman, 2000). This tally activated—were also especially likely to show a enhanced vulnerability to infection also predicts preference for symmetrical faces (Little, DeBruine, exaggerated intergroup prejudices: Women in their & Jones, 2011; Young, Sacco, & Hugenberg, 2011). first trimester of pregnancy—but not in the later We have been discussing researchASSOCIATION revealing that stages—display higher levels of xenophobia and eth- the desire to avoid disease shapes how individuals nocentrism (Navarrete, Fessler, & Eng, 2007). perceive and think about others. Such concerns also If prejudices against out-group members exist shape how people think about themselves. For partially as a defense against pathogen infection, instance, circumstances that temporarily activate the interventions that objectively buffer people against threat of infectious disease lead people to view disease—vaccinations and hand washing—might themselves as less extraverted and as less open to also buffer them against such prejudices. In one new experiences (Mortensen, Becker, Ackerman, series of studies (Huang et al., 2011), participants Neuberg, & Kenrick, 2010). By viewing oneself as for whom threats of infection were made salient more introvertedPSYCHOLOGICAL and less interested in novelty, one exhibited negative prejudice against immigrants becomes less likely to enter into social encounters unless they reported having been recently vacci- with unknown, and potentially pathogenic, people. nated against the flu; vaccinated participants who Such effects replicate at the cultural level, with were dispositionally concerned with disease were ­people living in regions of the world with higher more prejudiced against out-groups heuristically pathogen loads reporting greater dispositional linked with disease (e.g., people who are obese,AMERICAN peo- ­leanings away from extraversion and openness to ple with physical disabilities, immigrants),© but not if experience (Schaller & Murray, 2008). the infection-buffering effects of vaccination were In sum, it is clear that a motivation to avoid dis- made salient; and participants dispositionally con- ease shapes a wide range of social-cognitive phe- cerned with disease were more prejudiced against nomena. It is worth making two additional points. out-groups heuristically associatedPROOFS with disease but An evolutionary approach to social cognition often not if they washed their hands and the computer brings to bear theoretical constructs and generates keyboard with a hand wipe before making their rat- predictions that lie well beyond the theoretical ings. Interventions that reduce the risk of infection architectures of traditional theories. A nice illustra- can also reduce prejudices toward groups heuristi- tion of this is the finding that women during their cally viewed as threatening infection. first trimester of pregnancy—but not the later Disease avoidance concerns also play a role in ­trimesters—express greater ethnocentrism and aesthetic judgments of faces. People generally prefer xenophobia (Navarrete et al., 2007). None of the healthy-lookingUNCORRECTED (vs. unhealthy-looking) facial com- predominant approaches to prejudice—focusing as plexions, but this preference emerges especially they do on processes of social categorization, social strongly among those who are dispositionally identity, realistic conflict, and the like—can gener- ­concerned about their own vulnerability to infection ate such a prediction, even though it is readily (Welling, Conway, DeBruine, & Jones, 2007). derived within an evolutionary framework. More ­Moreover, deviations from bilateral facial symmetry broadly, the breadth and richness of findings linking

22

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 22 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

disease concerns and social cognition illustrate the Vries, 2001): Compared with research participants generative utility of taking an evolutionary approach who had consumed regular candies, those who had to understanding social cognition, because there was consumed salty versions of those candies responded virtually no work on this particular motivational more quickly in a lexical decision task to drinking- system and its implications for everyday thought related items (relative to drinking unrelated items). until researchers began to explicitly apply the logical Moreover, thirsty participants in a second study tools of evolutionary psychology. exhibited enhanced incidental memory for drinking- relevant objects (relative to drinking-unrelated Resource Acquisition objects) that had been placed in the lab environ- To reproduce successfully and have one’s offspring ment. Other work has demonstrated that hungry do so as well, one must acquire sufficient tangible people are better able than satiated people to learn resources—nutrition, water, and the like. Our and remember food-related words (Epstein & Levitt, ancestors whose perceptual and cognitive systems 1962). Such biases can emerge at the earliest stages were better attuned to the availability of such of perceptual encoding: HungryASSOCIATION experimental par- resources, and in ways that enhanced their likeli- ticipants gained earlier conscious access to rapidly hood of acquiring them, reproduced more success- presented food-related words than did satiated peo- fully than their counterparts. Via natural selection, ple (Radel & Clément-Guillotin, 2012). As in the then, one would expect that contemporary humans experiments discussed earlier, in which the thirst- would be equipped with cognitive resource-acquisition induced processing advantages did not emerge for mechanisms. Of course, as we have noted, focusing drinking-unrelated items, the hunger-induced cognitive efforts on resource acquisition comes at ­learning and perceptual advantages did not emerge the cost of not attending to other important funda- for food-unrelated words. The motivations engaged mental goals. Thus, just as self-protective and dis- byPSYCHOLOGICAL hunger and thirst do not lead to domain-general ease avoidance goals and their accompanying processing advantages but rather are functionally perceptual and cognitive strategies are engaged pri- focused in a domain-specific manner. marily when cues to danger and disease are salient, In addition to those biases, people also perceive respectively (and especially for individuals who are currently desired resources to be physically closer dispositionally concerned about danger and dis- (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010): Thirsty people (but not ease), so too would we predict that resourceAMERICAN acquisi- nonthirsty people) perceived water bottles in their tion goals and their accompanying perceptual© and proximity to be closer, and people perceived a $100 cognitive strategies would be engaged primarily bill they could win to be physically closer than a when cues to resource deprivation are salient (and $100 bill they could not win. In all, the reviewed especially for those who are dispositionally con- research reveals that the motivation to acquire cerned about resource scarcity).PROOFS ­tangible, survival-relevant resources—in these cases, Indeed, a line of research stretching back to the induced via hunger, thirst, and the opportunity to days of the New Look (Bruner, 1957) has provided win significant money—creates a set of perceptual evidence for how the deprivation of certain and cognitive biases functioning to increase the like- resources alters how people perceive functionally lihood that a person will obtain the resources. These related stimuli. Poor children were observed to see biases not only divert people toward prioritizing the coins as larger than they really were (Bruner & acquisition of these resources (e.g., via increased Goodman, 1947), for example, and hungry people cognitive accessibility of the resource concepts) and UNCORRECTEDperceived pictures of food to be brighter than they make people more aware that such resources exist in really were (Gilchrist & Nesberg, 1952). their immediate environment (e.g., via enhancing More recently, a set of studies demonstrated their ability to identify and remember them), but that making people thirsty activates in the mind they also make the desired resource seem relatively drinking-related concepts and makes drinking-related easy to attain (e.g., by making them appear physi- items more memorable (Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & De cally closer).

23

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 23 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Informed by life history theory (e.g., Stearns, manner—by being willing to delay immediate 1992), other work has focused on how and when rewards for larger future ones and by taking current people allocate limited resources to different life rewards that are certain rather than gamble for tasks (e.g., physical growth, mating, parenting) and larger ones (Griskevicius et al., 2013; see also on the strategies they use to acquire resources Griskevicius, Tybur, Delton, & Robertson, 2011). (Figueredo et al., 2006; K. Hill & Kaplan, 1999; Other processes may be recruited in the service Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Kenrick & Luce, 2000). For of attaining and protecting important resources. For humans and other animals, the strategies driving example, college students assigned to read a news these behaviors are shaped by an individual’s cur- story about economic downturns and difficult job rent and early developmental ecologies. Harsh and markets expressed increased prejudice against Asian unpredictable ecologies shorten life spans and are Americans—a group stereotyped as posing threats to thus associated with a suite of “fast” strategic behav- those seeking good jobs (Butz & Yogeeswaran, 2011). iors that move people more quickly from investing Following from research discussed earlier on the energy in growing their physical and human capital threat specificity of intergroup prejudicesASSOCIATION (Cottrell to investing energy and effort in mating; in contrast, & Neuberg, 2005; Schaller & Neuberg, 2012), it is ecologies that are more resource rich and predict- instructive to note the presence of one of the hall- able are associated with a “slow” suite of strategic marks of evolved processes—functional specificity. behaviors in which people put off investment in In this experiment, prejudice against Asian Ameri- mating for continued further growth and capacity cans did not increase after a manipulation of a threat building (Ellis, Figueredo, Brumbach, & Schlomer, not presented as economic (i.e., global warming), 2009). For example, relative to resource-rich and and activating resource concerns did not increase predictable environments, harsh and unpredictable prejudice against all out-groups (i.e., against Black ecologies pull for earlier menarche for girls, greater Americans,PSYCHOLOGICAL who are stereotyped as threatening but promiscuity, having more children, risk taking, not in an economic way). impulsivity, and antisocial behavior including vio- The Butz and Yogeeswaran (2011) study demon- lence and criminality (Brumbach, Figueredo, & strated that concern about resources can engage Ellis, 2009; Figueredo et al., 2005, 2006). prejudice processes. Other work has shown how Recent research has shown that having been similar concerns alter mating psychology. For reared in harsh and unpredictable environmentsAMERICAN as a ­example, news stories that activate economic con- young child steers one to engage in fast strategies© in cern increase women’s preference for financially response to perceived resource stress later in life, secure men and, in turn, their willingness to spend whereas having been reared in more well-off and on beauty-enhancing products they view as useful more predictable environments steers one to engage for attracting such men—the so-called “lipstick in slower strategies in responsePROOFS to perceived effect” (S. E. Hill, Rodeheffer, Griskevicius, Durante, resource stress later in life (Griskevicius, Delton, & White, 2012). Revealing functional specificity, Robertson, & Tybur, 2011; Simpson, Griskevicius, this effect was not observed for products viewed as Kuo, Sung, & Collins, 2012). For example, after irrelevant to attracting men with resources. More- having economic insecurity primed (via photographs over, other findings revealed that the effect was not highlighting economic recession), people with driven by the women’s current need for resources. ­low-socioconomic-status childhoods are especially Rather, the effect appeared to be rooted in a deeper likely to discount the future (by accepting smaller, female mating psychology that desires long-term immediateUNCORRECTED rewards rather than larger rewards in the partners who can provide resource stability: Recog- future) and to prefer riskier rather than safer current nizing that difficult economic times reduce the cur- rewards (by preferring low-probability large rewards rent availability of such men, even currently secure to smaller sure bets). In contrast, people who had college women may have felt compelled to enhance high-socioconomic-status childhoods responded to their physical attractiveness to be competitive in this the primes of economic recession in the opposite more challenging long-term mating market.

24

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 24 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

As with goals related to self-protection and dis- potentially accepting versus rejecting faces. Individ- ease avoidance, then, activated concerns about uals who dispositionally have a greater need to acquiring resources also meaningfully shape cogni- belong are better at discriminating between happy tive processing in functionally focused, nuanced and angry faces—an important sensitivity given that ways. those bearing happy expressions are likely to be more socially accepting than those bearing angry Social Affiliation expressions (Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004). Ultrasociality is among the most important of More telling is experimental work by Bernstein, human adaptations: Relative to our more solitary Young, Brown, Sacco, and Claypool (2008) in which ancestors, those humans who successfully pursued perceivers randomly assigned to write about a time cooperative, highly interdependent group living they felt rejected, about a time they felt accepted, or received significant fitness advantages via sharing of about their previous morning (control) had the task nutrition and other resources, protection against of discriminating between authentic smiles and predators, rearing of children, and the like (e.g., inauthentic smiles. The researchersASSOCIATION reasoned that, Brewer & Caporael, 2006; D. Campbell, 1982; for those concerned with social rejection, being Leakey & Lewin, 1977; Richerson & Boyd, 1995). able to differentiate between true and faked smiles Given such critical benefits, humans evolved to seek should be particularly important because those acceptance from group members—to possess a expressing true smiles more strongly afford social strong need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). acceptance. This is indeed what they found When that need is not satisfied—when social ­(Bernstein et al., 2008). ­acceptance is in doubt, or after one has been socially In addition to this enhanced perceptual sensitivity, rejected—people do as one might expect: They individuals threatened with social exclusion exhibit exhibit increased desires to connect with those who attentionalPSYCHOLOGICAL selectivity biased toward potentially appear to pose potentially good opportunities for accepting others. In one set of experiments, socially friendship (Bernstein, Sacco, Brown, Young, & excluded participants were especially likely to Claypool, 2010; Maner, DeWall, et al., 2007). That attend to smiling faces: They were quicker to iden- social rejection is powerfully motivating is further tify smiling faces embedded among other faces, they reflected in some of its neurological concomitants. fixated their attention more on smiling faces, and For people with dispositional inclinationsAMERICAN to recon- they were slower to disengage their attention from nect (rather than withdraw) after rejection,© social smiling faces (DeWall, Maner, & Rouby, 2009). rejection increases progesterone—a hormone associ- More important, these effects were specific to ated with, and perhaps facilitative of, affiliative moti- approving faces: They did not obtain for disapprov- vation (Maner, Miller, Schmidt, & Eckel, 2010). ing faces or for positive, but nonsocial, stimuli. Moreover, social rejectionPROOFS exploits the same brain Apparently, the threat of social exclusion motivated systems that evolved to experience and manage phys- individuals, at very early stages of cognitive processing, ical pain (as part of an effort to ward against addi- to attempt to connect with faces presenting cues tional physical injury and to facilitate healing) to (i.e., smiles) linked to social acceptance. also experience and manage social pain (as part of an Concerns about social exclusion also shape infer- effort to ward against additional social rejection and ence processes. In one experiment, individuals were to facilitate social connection; Eisenberger, Lieberman, asked to form impressions of average-looking, neu- & Williams, 2003; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). trally expressive faces; participants who had just UNCORRECTEDA range of cognitive mechanisms play important been socially rejected by others viewed the faces as functional roles in helping people both avoid social more sociable (nicer, more friendly) than did those rejection and successfully reconnect with others who learned they had just been socially accepted after rejection. For example, when concerned about (Maner, DeWall, et al., 2007). In the absence of cues social acceptance and rejection, social perceivers to social threat—the faces in this experiment posed become especially good at discriminating among neutral expressions—a positivity bias in impression

25

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 25 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

formation likely functions to make it easier for (N. P. Li & Kenrick, 2006; Sadalla, Kenrick, & rejected individuals to approach potentially accept- Vershure, 1987; Turke & Betzig, 1985). It is thus ing others. clear why people would desire status, attend to pos- Whereas the experience of social rejection leads sibilities for seeking it, and be attuned to existing people to shift cognitive processes toward solving status relationships and changes in them. the problem of social connection, the experience of When available cues suggest that one has status, social acceptance apparently frees one to seek other one’s psychology and physiology orient in apparent fundamental goals. Life history theory aims to preparation to take advantage of the opportunities explain how organisms allocate energy and time to often afforded by it. For example, status and power different tasks across the life span (Kaplan & Gan- are typically displayed in human and nonhuman gestad, 2005; Stearns, 1976). Starting with the prem- animals with open, expansive postures, whereas ise that resources are finite, organisms face the acknowledgments of low power tend to be displayed problem of how to allocate them to maximize repro- with closed, tight postures. In one experiment, par- ductive fitness. When one is socially accepted, one ticipants were positioned by researchersASSOCIATION to display a can shift resources toward pursuing other goals, high-power (vs. low-power) pose; consequently, such as reproduction. Indeed, whether after actual they felt more powerful, exhibited an increased level social acceptance or after remembering instances of of testosterone (a hormone linked to competitive- social acceptance, people reported an increased ness) and a decreased level of cortisol (a hormone interest in, and importance of, mating (Brown, linked to stress), and took greater risks on a gam- Young, Sacco, Bernstein, & Claypool, 2009). bling task (Carney, Cuddy, & Yap, 2010). In sum, fundamental desires to be socially People cognitively process information about sta- accepted (and to avoid social rejection) shape a wide tus available in the form of social hierarchies with range of cognitive processes—and do so in nuanced, relativePSYCHOLOGICAL ease, being especially quick to identify, functionally specific ways. learn, and remember such hierarchies (Zitek & ­Tiedens, 2012). The ability and inclination to men- tally represent hierarchical relations between others STATUS AND DOMINANCE SEEKING emerges at a very young age, 12–15 months Although evolved to be affiliative and ultrasocial, ­(Mascaro & Csibra, 2012). Moreover, in line with humans are also selfish and, like other animals,AMERICAN seek the fact that high-status individuals (compared with opportunities to enhance themselves relative© to lower status counterparts) potentially pose signifi- ­others—to seek status. Status can derive from one’s cant threats to and opportunities for others, people ability and willingness to physically dominate cognitively process high-status others in privileged ­others. It can also derive from one’s ability and will- ways. For instance, compared with faces labeled as ingness to manage a networkPROOFS of social connections belonging to low-status individuals, faces of high- to control the benefits others receive. Also, unlike status individuals capture more attention, are the status gained via physical dominance and social remembered better, and are processed using more power, which tends to be conferred grudgingly by effective holistic strategies (Ratcliff, Hugenberg, others, a third form of status—prestige—can derive Shriver, & Bernstein, 2011). Other research has from the possession of important and unique knowl- shown enhanced attentional processing for high-­ edge or skills that others desire to learn (Henrich & status men in particular (e.g., DeWall & Maner, Gil-White, 2001). 2008; Maner, DeWall, & Gaillot, 2008). This sex UNCORRECTEDRegardless of its source, high status affords sig- difference comports with theory and a great amount nificant fitness-enhancing benefits for those with it. of evidence that dominant males ought to be of spe- Possessing high status means that others are more cial interest—to female perceivers because dominant likely to defer to claims for resources, to perform men are desirable as mates (e.g., N. P. Li, Bailey, favors, and—for male holders of high status, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Sadalla et al, 1987) ­especially—to make themselves available for mating and to male perceivers because dominant men afford

26

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 26 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

significant intrasexual competition (e.g., Buss & psychology is vast, and this chapter is not designed Schmidt, 1993; Maner, Gailliot, Rouby, & Miller, 2007). to provide a review of it. Earlier, we introduced sev- Although it is clear that high-status individuals receive eral key principles and illustrative empirical findings privileged cognitive processing, the circumstances (e.g., differential parental investment and its impli- under which target sex differences emerge remains an cations for sex differences in the characteristics open question. males and females prefer in mates) when summariz- Strategic processing of high-status individuals ing the logical foundations of evolutionary social should be especially pronounced for perceivers who cognition. Here we focus on how the activation of a are dispositionally or acutely concerned with status mate-seeking goal shapes social cognition in func- and dominance. Perceivers high in social dominance tionally nuanced ways. orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, Men, especially when they are in a mating frame 1994) view status as a central organizing feature of of mind, selectively attune their attention to attrac- social life and prefer hierarchical relations among tive women, pay extra attention to them, and have a people and groups. One might thus expect them to relatively difficult time disengagingASSOCIATION attention from be particularly attuned to high-status individuals, them (Duncan et al., 2007; Maner, Gailliot, & especially those with the potential and inclination to DeWall, 2007; Maner, Gailliot, Rouby, & Miller, project their status into social relations—such as 2007; Maner et al., 2003). Indicative of their func- angry, high-status men. Consistent with this, one tional specificity, these mate-seeking effects are less study found that perceivers high in social domi- likely to emerge for men who are dispositionally nance orientation were generally better than those restricted in their sexuality—those who are espe- low in social dominance orientation at identifying cially oriented toward long-term committed rela- emotional expressions on high-status male faces and tionships. These attentional biases also tend to be that this was especially the case when the target directedPSYCHOLOGICAL specifically toward attractive women but faces were angry high-status men (Ratcliff, Bernstein, not average-looking women, and not toward attrac- Cundiff, & Vescio, 2012). tive people in general (i.e., attractive men). More- Other work has focused on envy—an emotion over, memory for attractive women—good under that results from social comparisons with advantaged normal motivational circumstances (e.g., Becker, others. Envy often motivates status-relevant inclina- Kenrick, Guerin, & Maner, 2005)—is further tions toward ambition (to enhance one’s AMERICANown status), enhanced when men are in a mating frame of mind destruction (to take down another’s high© status), or (Maner et al., 2003). submission (to accept and defer to ­another’s high Mating-minded women—either because they are status; S. E. Hill & Buss, 2008; van de Ven, Zeelen- dispositionally sexually unrestricted, have recently berg, & Pieters, 2009). S. E. Hill, DelPriore, and been exposed to circumstances that activate mating Vaughan (2011) reasonedPROOFS that, when envious, one goals, or are currently ovulating—devote increased might be especially inclined to gather information attention to attractive men (Anderson et al., 2010; about those who are relatively advantaged because Becker et al., 2005; Maner et al., 2003; Maner, Gail- such information might be useful for determining liot, Rouby, & Miller, 2007). Interestingly, however, how to become advantaged oneself, how best to this boost in attention does not tend to translate into damage another’s status, or whether to defer to enhanced memory, revealing a processing disjunction. another’s status. Indeed, participants led to experi- As a general principle, enhanced visual attention ence envy attended more to information about their typically translates into enhanced memory. When it UNCORRECTEDadvantaged peers and remembered more about them. does not—and when the disruption in memory encoding cannot be readily attributed to cognitive Mate Acquisition overload, distraction, or interference from compet- For humans, as for all sexually reproducing animals, ing stimuli—it is worth considering the possibility acquiring a desirable mate is a central challenge. that the social-cognitive system may be calibrated to Indeed, the evolutionary literature on mating-seeking the functional value provided by different processes

27

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 27 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

in the cognitive stream. In this case, whereas there ­evidence of overperceiving male sexual interest may be value for mating-minded women to scan ini- (e.g., Haselton & Buss, 2000) and may even tially for physically attractive men and pay some ­underestimate male interest (Perilloux et al., 2012). degree of enhanced attention to them, the costs for When ovulating, women’s partner preferences women of short-term sexual liaisons remain great shift toward men with characteristics implying (e.g., unwanted pregnancy). Extensive processing of ­masculinity and good genes (for reviews, see attractive male strangers—in the absence of cues ­DeBruine et al., 2010; Gangestad & Thornhill, 2008; suggesting that they possess other desirable features B. C. Jones et al., 2008). Ovulation also has more (e.g., resources, willingness to commit)—may thus general effects in cognitively orienting women generally be a poor use of limited cognitive toward partners presumed to be more suitable resources (Kenrick, Delton, Robertson, Becker, & mates. Compared with nonovulating women, ovu- Neuberg, 2007). Similar functionally directed pro- lating women are quicker to categorize male than cessing disjunctions—in which enhanced attention female faces (Johnston, Arden, Macrae, & Grace, does not translate into enhanced memory—have 2003; Macrae, Alnwick, Milne, & Schloerscheidt,ASSOCIATION been observed in the context of disease-avoidant 2002). Women close to their peak ovulation are also perceivers processing information about individuals better able to differentiate between the faces of self- presenting invariant cues of infectious disease identified straight and gay men (Rule, Rosen, (Ackerman et al., 2009). ­Slepian, & Ambady, 2011). This enhanced ability to From an evolutionary perspective, the costs for differentiate is not attributable to a general improve- men of perceiving a good mating opportunity that ment in social perception accuracy; ovulating women does not actually exist are less than the costs of are no better at differentiating between straight and missing a good mating opportunity that does exist: lesbian women. Rather, these findings suggest, again, In the first case, the misperception carries the possi- the presencePSYCHOLOGICAL of a cognitive mechanism tuned toward ble cost of social rejection and wasted effort; in the solving a mating-related challenge (i.e., identifying a latter case, the misperception costs a scarce, and suitable mate) when it especially makes functional highly valuable, opportunity (Haselton & Buss, sense to do so (i.e., when ovulating). 2000; Haselton & Nettle, 2006). A bias toward over- Interestingly, women’s ovulation status also perceiving female sexual interest, then, would serve shapes male mate-seeking motivation and cognition. to encourage men to pursue mating opportunitiesAMERICAN Men expend great effort and resources seeking they might otherwise let pass, thereby increasing© mates. All else equal, our male ancestors who were their overall likelihood of success. Indeed, men do attuned to female peak fertility, and consequently tend to overperceive female sexual interest (e.g., focused their mating efforts and resources at that Abbey, 1982; Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008; time, would have gained a significant reproductive Henningsen, Henningsen, &PROOFS Valde, 2006). Reveal- advantage over their less attuned counterparts, ing the functional specificity of this bias, it tends to which suggests the possibility of male adaptations be directed toward physically attractive women— for identifying female peak fertility—even if non- who pose, for most men, the greatest mating chal- consciously—and for enhancing mating motivation lenge but also the greatest reproductive value. This in response. Indeed, there exist detectable cues to bias is also strongest for men in a mating frame of ovulation in women’s behavior, scent, and voice (for mind, either because of recent circumstances or a review, see Haselton & Gildersleeve, 2011). More- because of dispositional sexual unrestrictedness over, men demonstrate behavioral, hormonal, and (ManerUNCORRECTED et al., 2005; Perilloux, Easton, & Buss, cognitive shifts in response to women’s approaching 2012). Of course, for women, the costs of pursuing ovulation. For example, men exposed to T-shirts sexual relationships with male strangers are greater, worn by women near (vs. far from) ovulation and—with the exception of circumstances in which exhibit higher levels of testosterone (S. L. Miller & women are in a clear power position over a man Maner, 2010b)—a hormone linked to mating moti- (Kunstman & Maner, 2011)—they exhibit little vation (Roney, Lukaszewski, & Simmons, 2007).

28

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 28 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Such men also exhibit increased accessibility of sexual As with all adaptations, however, pair-bonded thoughts and exhibit greater nonverbal mimicry and mating involves trade-offs. Exclusive pair bonding riskier decisions—each of which have also been linked requires abstention from extrapair mating opportu- to mating motivation—when interacting with women nities. For men, extrapair mating increases the num- near the time of ovulation (S. L. Miller & Maner, ber of offspring they can produce; for women, 2011b). Male mating motivation, like ­women’s, is selective extrapair mating can increase the genetic responsive to female hormonal fluctuations. quality of their offspring. Extrapair mating thus Mate-seeking motivation also shapes economic affords certain benefits for the self. Despite such decision making (Kenrick et al., 2009). Consider, benefits, extrapair mating can also impose great for instance, the phenomenon of loss aversion, in costs on one’s partner. Men who mate outside the which people psychologically weigh losses more pair bond may, via the link between love and invest- heavily than equivalent gains (Kahneman & Tversky, ment, redirect resources away from the pair-bonded 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). This bias is mate and her children. Women who mate outside highly robust (Vohs & Luce, 2010) and, given that the pair bond may become impregnated,ASSOCIATION leading to our ancestors operated near the economic margins the possibility that the cuckolded pair-bonded mate in ecological contexts of scarcity and unpredictabil- will unwittingly invest scarce resources in children ity, there are good reasons to view it as an adapta- fathered by another. In response, humans appar- tion designed to preserve valuable resources. As we ently evolved mechanisms designed to limit extra- have noted, however, adaptations are functionally pair mating by partners, as well as to address other flexible, sensitive to the individual’s life history and challenges to mate retention (e.g., Buss & Shackel- immediate circumstances. For men, access to sexu- ford, 1997a; Haselton & Gangestad, 2006). ally available women was also scarce, and so risking The costs of extrapair mating are somewhat dif- existing resources to acquire potentially greater ferentPSYCHOLOGICAL for men and women. One might thus expect resources (because women value resources in a men and women to use somewhat different strate- mate) or to signal that one could afford to take such gies to combat it in their partners. Much research, risks (which also implies enhanced male mate for instance, has focused on jealousy. This work has value) may have been an effective strategy when found that, consistent with this reasoning, men tend mating motivation was especially salient and strong. to be especially jealous of the possibility that their Indeed, in a series of experiments, men—butAMERICAN not mates may have sex with other men, whereas women—became biased away from loss© aversion women tend to be especially jealous of the possibil- and toward gain seeking when mate-seeking goals ity that their mates may fall in love with another were activated (Y. J. Li, Kenrick, Griskevicius, & woman (Buss et al., 1992; B. P. Buunk, Angleitner, Neuberg, 2012). Note that men did not become Obaid, & Buss, 1996; Pietrzak, Laird, Stevens, & more gain seeking whenPROOFS self-protection goals were Thompson, 2002; Sagarin, Becker, Guadagno, activated, revealing again the functional specificity ­Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003; Shackelford, LeBlanc, & of many cognitive biases. Drass, 2000; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1992; for reviews, see Buss, 2004; Sagarin, 2005). Mate Retention Here we focus on social-cognitive processes that To manage the complexities of interdependent ultra- facilitate mate retention and see that they are espe- sociality effectively, human adults must possess cially likely to be used under circumstances in nuanced social skills and strategies, as well as a large which infidelity concerns are salient. Consider, for UNCORRECTEDamount of social information. To accommodate the example, how mate-retention motivation might required learning, children take a relatively long modulate early categorization processes. Members time to sexually mature into adults. This lengthy of one’s own sex are potential competitors for one’s developmental period requires enhanced and current partner; if same-sex competitors are physi- extended parental investment, which is itself facili- cally attractive, and thereby particularly desirable tated by long-term pair bonding of parents. for short-term mating, they are a greater threat.

29

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 29 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Thus, if one is particularly invested in one’s relation- same sex and facilitates the forming of implicit nega- ship or is acutely concerned that one’s partner may tive evaluations of them (Maner, Miller, Rouby, & be interested in an extrapair relationship, one Gailliot, 2009). In all, the data reveal the presence of should be more likely to encode others in terms of a suite of functionally tuned cognitive mechanisms their physical attractiveness. This is the case (Maner that serve to protect against threats from potential et al., 2012): Participants in one study who were romantic competitors. highly invested in their current relationships were Focusing on potential competitors is one strategy especially likely to categorize same-sex individuals for mate retention. A second is to enhance one’s in terms of their physical attractiveness; this was not own commitment—or at least one’s apparent the case for those who were less invested in their ­commitment—to one’s partner, thereby reducing relationships—unless they had been asked to imagine the relative benefits to them of seeking extrapair their partner flirting with and kissing someone else mates. This is no simple feat, because the presence at a party. Whether concern for mate retention was of desirable members of the opposite sex can reduce based on previous relationship investment or on an commitment to one’s own relationshipASSOCIATION (e.g., Kenrick, acute contemplation that one’s partner might sexually Neuberg, Zierk, & Krones, 1994). Yet the benefits of cheat, it shaped the dimension used—physical maintaining a pair-bonded relationship are also attractiveness—to categorize others. great, and it appears that certain psychological incli- We showed earlier that men pay special attention nations are in place to do just that. Perhaps most to physically attractive women and remember them notable is the inclination for relationship-committed well. Women, too, pay special attention to, and people to see otherwise desirable others as, in fact, remember well, physically attractive women. This less desirable (e.g., S. L. Miller & Maner, 2010a; latter finding may be linked to mate-retention con- Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990). Moreover, cerns because the bias seems to be especially strong whereasPSYCHOLOGICAL early attention of mating-minded individuals for women committed to their current relationships is generally drawn and held by attractive opposite-sex (Maner et al., 2003). Other work has shown that, for targets, the same activated mating goals decrease the individuals who are dispositionally vigilant to same- attentional pull of attractive opposite-sex targets for sex competitors, having them visualize a partner individuals who view themselves as highly committed flirting with and kissing another person increased to a current romantic partner (Maner, Gailliot, & their attention to attractive same-sex others. AMERICANDem- Miller, 2009). onstrating functional specificity, this attentional© bias Such effects may be mediated by the emotion of was not observed in a control condition manipulating love, which appears to serve as a relationship com- general anxiety for perceivers dispositionally uncon- mitment mechanism (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & cerned about being cheated on when the same-sex Smith, 2001). Consistent with this idea, the experi- targets were only average lookingPROOFS or when the ence of love is linked with oxytocin, a hormone ­targets were of the opposite sex (Maner, Gailliot, designed to facilitate social bonding among human Rouby, & Miller, 2007). Other findings have further and nonhuman individuals (Taylor et al., 2000). suggested the goal-focused nature of this enhanced Moreover, feelings of love make it easier for people attention to same-sex others: The attention of to suppress thoughts of physically attractive alterna- women who are insecure about their current rela- tives to their current partners (Gonzaga, Haselton, tionships is especially captured by other attractive Smurda, Davies, & Poore, 2008). In another experi- women (Maner, Gailliot, & DeWall, 2007). ment, participants in committed romantic relation- UNCORRECTEDCognitive processing focused on potential ships were assigned to write about a time they felt romantic competitors goes beyond attention. For strongly in love with their current partner; control perceivers who are chronically jealous, activating participants (also in committed relationships) wrote concerns about a partner’s infidelity also increases instead about a time they felt very happy. A subse- the effectiveness with which one encodes and quent task assessing attention to physically attrac- remembers physically attractive strangers of the tive opposite-sex targets revealed that, when love for

30

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 30 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

partners had been made salient, the physically were not (e.g., photos of ugly animals, dirty toilets). attractive potential romantic alternatives were less Disgust motivates avoidance, yet raising young chil- likely to hold participants’ attention (Maner, Rouby, dren requires one to confront much that is disgusting. & Gonzaga, 2008). One might hypothesize that, when concerned about parenting, the subjective experience of child-elicited Child Rearing and Kin Care disgust would be attenuated so that one could As just discussed, human young require—and remain engaged and able to effectively care for the ­generally receive—great amounts of parental care child. Supporting this hypothesis, women who were (Geary, 2000). Such care is not indiscriminate, how- primed with a parenting goal (compared with con- ever. The motivation to provide care depends par- trol participants) and who were also in the fertile tially on the genetic payoff (Kurland & Gaulin, 2005; stage of their menstrual cycle (and thus at a time Salmon, 2005). For instance, in line with differences when conception is most likely) were less disgusted in genetic relatedness, parents nurture their biologi- by the gross baby images (Shidlovski & Hassin, cal offspring more than their stepchildren (Daly & 2011). Suggesting functional specificity,ASSOCIATION this attenu- Wilson, 1998; Tooley, Karakis, Stokes, & Ozanne- ated disgust response was limited to the baby Smith, 2006). Following from our discussion of ­stimuli: Ovulating parenting-minded women were paternal uncertainty and cuckoldry, fathers provide as disgusted by the nonbaby stimuli as were the better care for children who look like them—a cue other women. that heuristically implies genetic ­relatedness—than Several other experiments have temporarily acti- for those who do not (Apicella & Marlowe, 2004; vated a parental mind-set—and thus activated fun- Burch & Gallup, 2000; Platek et al., 2004). And damental goals specific to parental care and child paternal grandfathers—who can never be certain rearing—by reminding parents that they are, in fact, whether their own sons are actually theirs or whether parents.PSYCHOLOGICAL Given that a substantial fitness benefit of their son’s children are actually his—are generally parental care accrues from the protection of off- less likely to invest in these grandchildren (Laham, spring from health risks of various kinds, one might Gonsalkorale, & von Hippel, 2005; Michalski & expect that this kind of manipulation might influ- Shackelford, 2005; Pollet, Nettle, & Nelissen, 2007; ence risk-relevant cognitions. It does. When parents Webster, 2003). are reminded of their parenthood, they conse- The motivation for parents to provideAMERICAN care is also quently judge potentially risky activities (e.g., skiing) partially shaped by a child’s likelihood© of surviving to be more risky, they engage in more risk-averse to successfully reproduce. After all, with limited economic decision making, and they respond more resources parents are faced with trade-offs—between harshly to morally offensive violations of behav- caring for one child versus another and between ioral norms (Eibach, Libby, & Ehrlinger, 2009; ­caring for a child versus PROOFSinvesting in additional Eibach & Mock, 2011). These results in the cogni- reproduction. Indeed, mothers tend to invest more tive realm are conceptually consistent with results in children who are healthy than in those who are from other experiments (that use different meth- not (Hrdy, 1999). ods that temporarily create a parental mind-set These findings focus on the provision of characterized by feelings of tenderness toward resources and prosocial action. There is, at present, infants), indicating temporary decreases in testos- a relative paucity of empirical research that directly terone levels and more careful and cautious motor explores the ways in which the activation of parental behavior (Sherman, Haidt, & Coan, 2009). The UNCORRECTEDcare goals shapes social cognition. One study inves- conceptual coherence of these various results tigated the effects that subtly priming women with a reminds us, once again, that thinking is for parenting goal would have on their reactions to doing—that the effects of fundamental motives on potentially disgusting images—some of which were social cognition is just one adaptive part of a phys- related to child rearing (e.g., photos of babies with iological system that evolved in service to fitness- runny noses or dirty diapers) and some of which relevant behavior.

31

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 31 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

One might further expect that parenting-focused Although we know of no research that has explic- individuals would exhibit other functional biases as itly attempted to experimentally activate kin care well. For example, they may be especially attuned to goals in a manner analogous to the methods of signals (e.g., cries) that their children are in need, be manipulating self-protection, mate retention, and especially good at differentiating their children from other fundamental human motives, it seems a worth- similar others (visually, aurally, and by smell; e.g., while endeavor for future research. Such goal states, Wiesenfeld, Malatesta, & Deloach, 1981), have when activated, may have predictable implications especially good memory for their children’s last for the manner in which heuristic cues (such as known location, remember especially well function- facial similarity) implicitly connote kinship and for a ally relevant details about their children’s lives, be wide range of downstream cognitive consequences particularly attentive to their children’s potential that follow from kinship inferences (inferences mates (e.g., A. P. Buunk et al., 2008; Faulkner & about trustworthiness, sexual attractiveness, etc.). Schaller, 2007; Perilloux, Fleischman, & Buss, More generally, we see that whereas the adaptive 2008), and the like. Moreover, such effects may be cognitive consequences of some fundamentalASSOCIATION moderated by the children’s own reproductive value motives (such as self-protection) have been illumi- to the parent. Such hypotheses remain to be thor- nated in considerable detail, the cognitive conse- oughly explored. quences of others (mate retention, child rearing, kin The concept of inclusive fitness recognizes that care) have yet to receive the same level of empirical our genes reside not just in the bodies of our off- attention. The broad principles discussed through- spring but in others’ bodies as well (Hamilton, out this chapter may be useful in developing these 1964a, 1964b). Thus, by enhancing the reproduc- programs of research further. tive fitness of those who are close genetic relatives, we potentially enhance our own fitness, too. This SOCIALPSYCHOLOGICAL COGNITION AS AFFORDANCE explains strong psychological inclinations toward MANAGEMENT nepotism—in humans and other animals—as well as the enhanced inclination to help close kin, espe- From an evolutionary approach, social cognition is a cially when their fitness is threatened (e.g., Burnstein set of tools for managing the threats and opportuni- et al., 1994; see Burnstein, 2005, for a review). ties afforded by others in one’s social environment. Because people have no means of directly assessingAMERICAN These tools do not exist to enhance self-regard— others’ genetic relatedness, people implicitly© use although they sometimes do. They do not exist to imperfect superficial cues as implicit indicators of discover or attribute meaning to life—although they kinship. One such cue is familiarity: Ancestrally, sometimes do. They do not exist merely to simplify people would have been, on average, in closer an awesomely complex and dynamic world— physical proximity to familyPROOFS members than to although they certainly do. And they do not exist to more genetically distal individuals. Another cue is provide perfect assessments of that world—which phenotypic resemblance: Given that phenotypic they certainly do not. Rather, these tools exist as features are substantially influenced by genes, specialized mechanisms, as adaptations designed by ­people who are more closely related genetically natural selection to solve a set of long-recurring tend to be more similar in physical appearance, challenges to our ancestors’ reproductive fitness— attitudes, and behavior. As we discussed earlier, challenges related to self-protection, disease avoid- extensive bodies of research now reveal that people ance, resource acquisition, social affiliation, status do UNCORRECTEDindeed attend to these kinds of cues and use acquisition, mate acquisition, mate retention, child them to draw implicit inferences about kinship, rearing, and kin care. with predictable implications for person percep- These cognitive mechanisms respond to stimuli tion and social judgment (DeBruine, 2005; that cue specific social opportunities and threats. Lieberman et al., 2007; Park & Schaller, 2005; We have seen, for example, that angry expressions Park et al., 2007). cue threats to physical safety, bodily malformations

32

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 32 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

cue the possibility of disease contagion, facial Development is critical to evolutionary ­symmetry cues good genes for purposes of mating, approaches. How genes are expressed depends on a and the like. Such cues are not promiscuously rele- wide range of factors, including gestational vant: Angry facial expressions, for instance, do not ­hormones and early childhood environments. This cue all manner of threats, but rather a specific phenotypic plasticity is not only presumed by an threat. The content of what is being processed mat- evolutionary approach but also viewed as adaptive, ters. Content matters in another way, too. Whether because the ability of any evolved inclination to ben- these cues are noticed and processed, and the roles efit the individual depends on the local environment. they play in downstream cognition and judgment, As discussed earlier, individual differences in fast depends on a perceiver’s current motives: For a per- versus slow life history strategies, emerging as a ceiver interested in finding a short-term mate— function of the levels of harshness and predictability whether because she is dispositionally unrestricted of childhood environments, provide but one example. sexually, because she is currently ovulating, or Learning is also critical to evolutionary because the immediate social context makes such a approaches. It enables people ASSOCIATIONto acquire information goal particularly attractive to her—a neighbor’s about local circumstances, thereby enabling them to exquisite facial symmetry may be of some moment; flexibly—and functionally—prioritize their goals for a parent attending to a sick child, that physical and adjust their actions to better serve them. We beauty is unlikely to register or be targeted with discussed the idea of prepared learning, in which subsequent interest. people are better equipped to learn, and not to Such cues are imperfectly diagnostic and their use unlearn, evolutionarily relevant versus irrelevant is necessarily heuristic, but they are not arbitrary. associations (e.g., to fear snakes vs. electrical out- Rather, they were likely diagnostic of real threats and lets, to fear out-group men vs. out-group women; opportunities in our ancestral environments and thus ÖhmanPSYCHOLOGICAL & Mineka, 2001; Navarrete et al., 2009). are still used, if not consciously, today. This means This is not to say that humans are not entirely that the inferences and judgments resulting from the ­capable of learning things totally irrelevant to ances- processing of such cues will sometimes be mistakes. tral priorities. Of course they are, and they do. It is Angry expressions do not always reveal authentic to say, however, that the mind is not a blank slate anger, bodily abnormalities do not always reveal con- and that some things are predictably easier to learn, tagious disease, and facial symmetry doesAMERICAN not always and remember, than are others (Pinker, 2003). reveal good genes (insert your favorite© cosmetic sur- Cultural influences are therefore entirely com- gery joke here). Their use, however, conferred on patible with an evolutionary approach to social cog- ancestral populations more benefits than costs, and nition, as is cultural variability. Such influences humans are biased toward using them today. Social emerge because cultural contexts afford somewhat cognition is thus imperfect—indeed,PROOFS expected to be different nuances of threats and opportunities, imperfect—but in adaptively sensible ways. In our somewhat different developmental contexts, and attempts to manage the threats and opportunities of somewhat different learning environments and, social life, humans might be said to be, in an ances- indeed, things to learn. We would thus expect even tral sense, deeply rational (Kenrick et al., 2009). evolved, universal mechanisms to manifest them- selves somewhat differently across cultures ­(Norenzayan, Schaller, & Heine, 2010). NATURE AND NURTURE From an evolutionary psychology view, it is long UNCORRECTEDWe noted earlier that evolutionary approaches to past time to abandon the simplistic, wrong-headed, human cognition and behavior are all too frequently and wearying nature-versus-nurture discussion. interpreted as implying a hard-wired, genetic deter- Evolutionary explanations and developmental, minism that leaves little room for developmental, learning, and sociocultural explanations are not learning, and cultural influences. We also noted that alternatives for explaining human cognition and this interpretation is a gross misconstrual. behavior. Rather, these forces interact with one

33

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 33 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

another in complex and interesting ways. The pur- By rigorously applying the logical tools of evolu- suit of understanding these interactions, and their tionary biology, we can not only gain a deeper effects on behavior, is one of psychological science’s appreciation for the ultimate origin of social-­ most important upcoming endeavors. cognitive mechanisms but also more fully articulate how these proximate mechanisms operate in con- temporary social circumstances. FINAL COMMENTS It is useful to hypothesize ultimate explanations for phenomena already known to exist, and a strong metatheory needs to possess a set of principles and a References logically rigorous conceptual framework to enable Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & De Vries, D. (2001). the derivation of theories to account for such phe- On the psychology of drinking: Being thirsty and nomena. However, evolutionary hypothesis ­perceptually ready. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 631–642. doi:10.1348/000712601162383 ­generation—like all hypothesis generation—is espe- ASSOCIATION cially useful when it goes beyond offering a plausible Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ account of known phenomena to also enable the friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social deduction of additional, previously undiscovered Psychology, 42, 830–838. doi:10.1037/0022- psychological phenomena. These deductions—novel 3514.42.5.830 hypotheses about social-cognitive mechanisms oper- Ackerman, J. M., Becker, D. V., Mortensen, C. R., Sasaki, ating at a proximate level of analysis—can then be T., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). A pox on the mind: Disjunction of attention and memory tested and potentially falsified by empirical results. in the processing of physical disfigurement.Journal What we have seen is that the evolutionary of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 478–485. approach has been extremely successful along these doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.008PSYCHOLOGICAL lines. It has brought light to highly influential causal Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, variables—for example, ovulation, disease vulnera- D. T., Schaller, M., Becker, D. V., . . . Maner, J. K. bility, facial symmetry, and ambient darkness—that (2006). They all look the same to me (unless they’re angry): From out-group homogeneity to out-group lie outside the conceptual architectures of tradi- heterogeneity. Psychological Science, 17, 836–840. tional social-cognitive theories. It has challenged doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01790.x implicit assumptions in social cognition that AMERICANcontent Anderson, U. S., Perea, E. F., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, matters less than process by revealing just© how cru- J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, cial content is if one wants to understand how D. T. (2010). I only have eyes for you: Ovulation redirects attention (but not memory) to attractive ­people come to understand their social worlds, and men. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, it has uncovered subtle but critical nuances in phe- 804–808. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.015 nomena of great interest to socialPROOFS psychologists, Anthony, T., Copper, C., & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross- ranging from the different emotional “flavors” of racial facial identification: A social cognitive integra- prejudices to the functionally specific ways in which tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296–301. doi:10.1177/0146167292183005 people process information as a function of their currently active goals and vulnerabilities. Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict As a metatheory, the evolutionary approach has men’s investment in children. Evolution and Human other strengths as well. It is integrative, linking phe- Behavior, 25, 371–378. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. nomena to one another in coherent ways, as when 2004.06.003 the UNCORRECTEDprinciple of differential parental investment can Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human ­behavior: be used to explain social-cognitive phenomena rang- An evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 319–345. ing from mate preferences to the processing of status doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.007 cues. It is also integrative in a broader, cross-disciplinary Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: way, linking social psychology to cognitive science More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological to anthropology to the biological sciences. Science, 21, 147–152. doi:10.1177/0956797609356283

34

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 34 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2010). Brown, C. M., Young, S. G., Sacco, D. F., Bernstein, M. J., Motivation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. & Claypool, H. M. (2009). Social inclusion facilitates Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th interest in mating. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 11–27. ed., pp. 268–316). New York, NY: Wiley. Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Bargh, J. A., & Huang, J. Y. (2009). The selfish goal. In G. Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in B. Moskowitz & H. Grant (Eds.), The psychology of adolescence on development of life history strategies. goals (pp. 127–150). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Human Nature, 20, 25–51. doi:10.1007/s12110-009- Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in 9059-3 ­cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. 113, 628–647. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.628 Psychological Review, 64, 123–152. doi:10.1037/ Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to h0043805 belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fun- Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and damental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, need as organizing factors in perception. Journal 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 33–44. Becker, D. V., Anderson, U. S., Neuberg, S. L., Maner, doi:10.1037/h0058484 J. K., Shapiro, J. R., Ackerman, J. M., . . . Kenrick, Buchner, A., Bell, R., Mehl, B., & Musch, J. (2009). No D. T. (2010). More memory bang for the atten- enhanced recognition memory,ASSOCIATION but better source tional buck: Self-protection goals enhance encoding memory for faces of cheaters. Evolution and Human efficiency for potentially threatening males.Social Behavior, 30, 212–224. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbe- Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 182–189. hav.2009.01.004 Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Guerin, S., & Maner, Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of J. K. (2005). Concentrating on beauty: Sexual social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological selection and sociospatial memory. Personality Bulletin, 126, 187–219. doi:10.1037/0033-2909. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1643–1652. 126.2.187 doi:10.1177/0146167205279583 Burch, R. L., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2000). Perceptions Becker, D. V., Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Blackwell, of paternal resemblance predict family violence. K. C., & Smith, D. M. (2007). The confounded PSYCHOLOGICALEvolution and Human Behavior, 21, 429–435. nature of angry men and happy women. Journal doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00056-8 of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 179–190. Burnstein, E. (2005). Altruism and genetic relatedness. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.179 In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary Becker, D. V., Neel, R., & Anderson, U. (2010). Illusory psychology (pp. 528–551). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. conjunctions of angry facial expressions follow inter- Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some group biases. Psychological Science, 21, 938–940.AMERICAN neo-Darwinian rules for altruism: Weighing cues doi:10.1177/0956797610373374 © for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological Bernstein, M. J., Sacco, D. F., Brown, C. M., Young, importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). A preference for Social Psychology, 67, 773–789. doi:10.1037/ genuine smiles following social exclusion. Journal 0022-3514.67.5.773 of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 196–199. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.010PROOFS paradigm for social science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., Sacco, D. F., 1–30. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0601_1 & Claypool, H. M. (2008). Adaptive responses to Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new social exclusion: Social rejection improves detection ­science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. of real and fake smiles. Psychological Science, 19, 981–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02187.x Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, Brewer, M. B. (2001). In-group identification and inter- physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, group conflict: When does in-group love become 251–255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x out-group hate? In R. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. UNCORRECTEDWilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strate- conflict reduction (pp. 17–41). New York, NY: Oxford gies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human University Press. mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204 Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. (2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), to violence: Mate retention tactics in married cou- Evolution and social psychology (pp. 143–161). New ples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, York, NY: Psychology Press. 346–361. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.346

35

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 35 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Butz, D., & Yogeeswaran, K. (2011). A new threat in Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adap- the air: Macroeconomic threat increases prejudice tations designed for social exchange. In D. M. Buss against Asian Americans. Journal of Experimental (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. Social Psychology, 47, 22–27. doi:10.1016/j. 584–627). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. jesp.2010.07.014 Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emo- Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Dubbs, S. L. (2008). Parent– tional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional offspring conflict in mate preferences.Review of threat-based approach to “prejudice.” Journal of General Psychology, 12, 47–62. doi:10.1037/ Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770–789. 1089-2680.12.1.47 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770 Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Obaid, V., & Buss, D. M. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary NY: Aldine de Gruyter. and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1998). The truth about Cinderella. 7, 359–363. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x London, England: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, England: similarity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Oxford University Press. 62, 713–715. doi:10.1037/h0044721 DeBruine, L., Jones, B. C., Frederick, D.ASSOCIATION A., Haselton, Campbell, A. (2005). Aggression. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), M. G., Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D. I. (2010). Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 628–652). Evidence for menstrual cycle shifts in women’s pref- Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. erences for masculinity: A response to Harris (in press) “Menstrual cycle and facial preferences recon- Campbell, D. T. (1982). Legal and primary-group social sidered.” Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 768–775. controls. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 5, 431–438. doi:10.1016/S0140-1750(82)92071-1 DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendo- 272, 919–922. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3003 crine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368. doi:10.1177/0956797610383437 DeWall,PSYCHOLOGICAL C. N., & Maner, J. K. (2008). High status men (but not women) capture the eye of the beholder. Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 328–341. warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239, 985–992. doi:10.1126/science.239.4843.985 DeWall, C. N., Maner, J. K., & Rouby, D. A. (2009). Social exclusion and early-stage interpersonal per- Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1996). The other-race ception: Selective attention to signs of acceptance. effect and eyewitness identification. In S. L. Sporer & Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, R. S. Malpass (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitnessAMERICAN 729–741. doi:10.1037/a0014634 identification (pp. 153–176). Hillsdale, NJ:© Erlbaum. Dobson, A. P., & Carter, E. R. (1996). Infectious diseases Cohen-Bendahan, C. C. C., van de Beek, C., & and human population history. Bioscience, 46, Berenbaum, S. A. (2005). Prenatal sex hormone 115–126. doi:10.2307/1312814 effects on child and adult sex-typed behav- ior: Methods and findings.Neuroscience and Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M., & Kanwisher, N. Biobehavioral Reviews, 29, 353–384.PROOFS doi:10.1016/j. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing neubiorev.2004.11.004 of the human body. Science, 293, 2470–2473. Conway, L. G., III, & Schaller, M. (2002). On the verifi- doi:10.1126/science.1063414 ability of evolutionary psychological theories: An Dunbar, R. I. M. (2003). The social brain: Mind, lan- analysis of the psychology of scientific persuasion. guage, and society in evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 152–166. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 163–181. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_04 doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158 Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations Duncan, L. A., Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Adaptive UNCORRECTEDmonkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal allocation of attention: Effects of sex and sociosexu- Behavior Processes, 16, 372–389. doi:10.1037/0097- ality on visual attention to attractive opposite-sex 7403.16.4.372 faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 359–364. Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.001 natural selection shaped how humans reason? Duncan, L. A., & Schaller, M. (2009). Prejudicial atti- Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition, 31, tudes toward older adults may be exaggerated 187–276. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(89)90023-1 when people feel vulnerable to infectious disease:

36

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 36 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Evidence and implications. Analyses of Social Issues theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. and Public Policy, 9, 97–115. doi:10.1111/j.1530- Developmental Review, 26, 243–275. doi:10.1016/j. 2415.2009.01188.x dr.2006.02.002 Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K., & Ehrlinger, J. (2009). Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, Priming family values: How being a parent affects J. A., Kirsner, B. R., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). The moral evaluations of harmless but offensive acts. K-factor: Individual differences in life history Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1160– ­strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.017 1349–1360. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009 Eibach, R. P., & Mock, S. E. (2011). The vigilant parent: Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, Parental role salience affects parents’ risk percep- M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human tions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. Journal cross-cultural variability in individualism/ of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 694–697. collectivism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.009 Biological Sciences, 275, 1279–1285. doi:10.1098/ Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. rspb.2008.0094 (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social Flaxman, S. M., & Sherman, P. W. (2000). Morning exclusion. Science, 302, 290–292. doi:10.1126/ sickness: A mechanism for protecting mother and science.1089134 embryo. Quarterly Review of ASSOCIATIONBiology, 75, 113–148. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cul- doi:10.1086/393377 tures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Social Psychology, 17, 124–129. doi:10.1037/h0030377 Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face. Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Inquiry, 17, 75–95. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1702_1 Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oes- Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions trus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20, 204–268. Sciences, 275, 991–1000. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1425 doi:10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7 Gangestad,PSYCHOLOGICAL S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar (2005). Epstein, S., & Levitt, H. (1962). The influence of hunger Adaptations to ovulation. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The on the learning and recall of food related words. handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 344–371). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 130–135. doi:10.1037/h0040920 Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and the proximate Ewald, P. W. (1994). Evolution of infectious disease. New expression of human paternal investment. York, NY: Oxford University Press. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.126.1.55 Farris, C. A., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall,AMERICAN R. M. (2008). Gender differences in perception© of women’s Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual per- sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19, 348–354. ception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02092.x Gilchrist, J. C., & Nesberg, L. S. (1952). Need and per- Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2007). Nepotistic nosi- ceptual change in need-related objects. Journal of ness: Inclusive fitness and vigilance of kin mem- Experimental Psychology, 44, 369–376. doi:10.1037/ bers’ romantic relationships.PROOFS Evolution and Human h0061823 Behavior, 28, 430–438. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbe- Gonzaga, G. C., Haselton, M. G., Smurda, J., Davies, hav.2007.06.001 M. S., & Poore, J. C. (2008). Love, desire, and Faulkner, J., Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Duncan, L. A. the suppression of thoughts of romantic alterna- (2004). Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms tives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 119–125. and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.003 Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 333–353. Gonzaga, G. C., Keltner, D., Londahl, E. A., & Smith, doi:10.1177/1368430204046142 M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment prob- Fessler, D. M. T., Eng, S. J., & Navarrete, C. D. (2005). lem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal UNCORRECTEDElevated disgust sensitivity in the first trimester of of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247–262. pregnancy: Evidence supporting the ­compensatory doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.247 prophylaxis hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior, Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. B., Lipson, S. 26, 344–351. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.12.001 F., & Ellison, P. T. (2002). Marriage and father- Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., hood are associated with lower testosterone in Schneider, S. M. R., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., . . . males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 193–201. Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00101-5

37

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 37 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Grillon, C., Pellowski, M., Merikangas, K. R., & Davis, Haselton, M. G., & Nettle, D. (2006). The para- M. (1997). Darkness facilitates acoustic startle reflex noid optimist: An integrative evolutionary in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 42, 453–460. model of cognitive biases. Personality and Social doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00466-0 Psychology Review, 10, 47–66. doi:10.1207/ Griskevicius, V., Ackerman, J. A., Cantu, S. M., Delton, s15327957pspr1001_3 A. W., Robertson, T. E., Simpson, J. A., . . . Tybur, Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. J. M. (2013). When the economy falters do people (2006). Gender differences in perceptions of wom- spend or save? Responses to resource scarcity en’s sexual interest during cross-sex interactions: depend on childhood environments. Psychological An application and extension of cognitive valence Science, 24, 197–205. theory. Sex Roles, 54, 821–829. doi:10.1007/s11199- Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & 006-9050-y Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental contingency in Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of con- life history strategies: The influence of mortality and formist transmission and between-group differ- socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal ences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215–241. of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 241–254. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00018-X doi:10.1037/a0021082 Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Delton, A. W., & Robertson, prestige: Freely conferred deferenceASSOCIATION as a mechanism T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeco- for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmis- nomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life his- sion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196. tory theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4 Psychology, 100, 1015–1026. doi:10.1037/a0022403 Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1999). Life history traits in Haas, J. (1990). The anthropology of war. New York, NY: humans: Theory and empirical studies. Annual Cambridge University Press. Review of Anthropology, 28, 397–430. doi:10.1146/ Hahn-Holbrook, J., Holbrook, C., & Haselton, M. (2011). annurev.anthro.28.1.397 Parental precaution: Adaptive ends and neurobiolog- Hill, S. E., & Buss, D. M. (2008). The evolutionary psy- ical means. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, chology of envy. In R. H. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory 35, 1052–1066. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.015 andPSYCHOLOGICAL research (pp. 60–70). New York, NY: Oxford Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of University Press. social behaviour I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, Hill, S. E., DelPriore, D. J., & Vaughan, P. W. (2011). The 1–16. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 cognitive consequences of envy: Attention, memory, Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of and self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Personality social behaviour II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, and Social Psychology, 101, 653–666. doi:10.1037/ 17–52. AMERICANa0023904 Harris, P. L., Núñez, M., & Brett, C. (2001). Let’s© swap: Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. Early understanding of social exchange by British M., & White, A. E. (2012). Boosting beauty in an and Nepali children. Memory and Cognition, 29, 757– economic decline: Mating, spending, and the lipstick 764. doi:10.3758/BF03200478 effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 275–291. doi:10.1037/a0028657 Haselton, M., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle increases thePROOFS short-term attractive- Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, ness of creative intelligence. Human Nature, 17, infants, and natural selection. New York, NY: Pantheon. 50–73. doi:10.1007/s12110-006-1020-0 Huang, J., Sedlovskaya, A., Ackerman, J., & Bargh, Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error man- J. (2011). Immunizing against prejudice: Effects agement theory: A new perspective on biases in of disease protection on attitudes toward out cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and groups. Psychological Science, 22, 1550–1556. Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. doi:10.1037/0022- doi:10.1177/0956797611417261 3514.78.1.81 Johnston, L., Arden, K., Macrae, C. N., & Grace, R. C. Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional (2003). The need for speed: The menstrual cycle UNCORRECTEDexpression of women’s desires and men’s mate- and person construal. Social Cognition, 21, 89–100. guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones doi:10.1521/soco.21.2.89.21319 and Behavior, 49, 509–518. doi:10.1016/j. yhbeh.2005.10.006 Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Law Smith, M. J. (2008). Haselton, M. G., & Gildersleeve, K. (2011). Can men Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. detect ovulation? Current Directions in Psychological Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 78–84. doi:10.1007/ Science, 20, 87–92. doi:10.1177/0963721411402668 s10508-007-9268-y

38

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 38 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Jones, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Mirenberg, Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, M. C. (2004). How do I love thee? Let me count the D. V., & Schaller, M. (2010). Goal-driven cognition Js: Implicit egotism and interpersonal attraction. and functional behavior: The fundamental motives Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, framework. Current Directions in Psychological 665–683. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.665 Science, 19, 63–67. doi:10.1177/0963721409359281 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185 Contrast effects as a function of sex, domi- nance, and physical attractiveness. Personality Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J., & Chun, M. M. (1997). and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210–217. The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastri- doi:10.1177/0146167294202008 ate cortex specialized for face perception. Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 4302–4311. Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary expla- nations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss Inquiry, 11, 1–21. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1101_01 (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Kostic, B., McFarlan, C. C., & Cleary, A. M. (2012). Extensions of the survival advantageASSOCIATION in memory: Keegan, J. (1993). A history of warfare. New York, NY: Examining the role of ancestral context and implied Knopf. social isolation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1091–1098. the peaceful savage. New York, NY: Oxford University doi:10.1037/a0026974 Press. Kunstman, J. W., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Sexual over- Kelly, R. C. (2005). The evolution of lethal intergroup perception: Power, mating goals, and biases in violence. Proceedings of the National Academy of social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Sciences, USA, 102, 15294–15298. doi:10.1073/ Psychology, 100, 282–294. doi:10.1037/a0021135 pnas.0505955102 Kurland, J. A., & Gaulin, S. (2005). Cooperation and conflict Kenrick, D. T., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T., Becker, D. PSYCHOLOGICALamong kin. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary V., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). How the mind warps: psychology (pp. 447–482). New York, NY: Wiley. A social evolutionary perspective on cognitive pro- Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary cessing disjunctions. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, origins of stigmatization: The functions of social & W. Von Hippel (Eds.), The evolution of the social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208. mind: Evolution and social cognition (pp. 49–68). New doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187 York, NY: Psychology Press. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. AMERICANL., & race be erased? Coalitional computation and social Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid© of categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient of Sciences, USA, 98, 15387–15392. doi:10.1073/ foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, pnas.251541498 292–314. doi:10.1177/1745691610369469 Laham, S. M., Gonsalkorale, K., & von Hippel, W. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Sundie, J. M., Li, N. P., Li, (2005). Darwinian grandparenting: Preferential Y. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2009).PROOFS Deep rationality: The investment in more certain kin. Personality evolutionary economics of decision-making. Social and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 63–72. Cognition, 27, 764–785. doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.764 doi:10.1177/0146167204271318 Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences Leakey, R. E., & Lewin, R. (1977). Origins: What new dis- in mates reflect sex differences in mating strate- coveries reveal about the emergence of our species and gies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–91. its possible future. New York, NY: Dutton. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00067595 Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of UNCORRECTEDand emergent social norms. Psychological Review, Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. 110, 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.3 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947 Kenrick, D. T., & Luce, C. L. (2000). An evolutionary Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and life-history model of gender differences and simi- differences in preferences for short-term mates: larities. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 35–64). Social Psychology, 90, 468–489. doi:10.1037/0022- Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 3514.90.3.468

39

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 39 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Li, Y. J., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., & Neuberg, Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, S. L. (2012). Economic decision biases and funda- T., Hofer, B., Delton, A. W., . . . Schaller, M. (2005). mental motivations: How mating and self-protection Functional projection: How fundamental social alter loss aversion. Journal of Personality and Social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal Psychology, 102, 550–561. doi:10.1037/a0025844 of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.63 Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Moss, J. H., Leo, J. L., & 727–731. doi:10.1038/nature05510 Plant, E. A. (2012). Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s sensitivity Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion Social Psychology, 103, 70–83. doi:10.1037/a0028172 changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Academy Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Rouby, D. A., & Gailliot, M. T. B: Biological Sciences, 278, 2032–2039. doi:10.1098/ (2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition rspb.2010.1925 of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 74–87. doi:10.1037/a0014055 MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Schmidt, N. B., & Eckel, physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202–223. L. A. (2010). The endocrinology ASSOCIATIONof exclusion: doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202 Rejection elicits motivationally tuned changes in progesterone. Psychological Science, 21, 581–588. Macrae, C. N., Alnwick, K. A., Milne, A. B., & doi:10.1177/0956797610362676 Schloerscheidt, A. M. (2002). Person perception across the menstrual cycle: Hormonal influences on Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. (2008). social-cognitive functioning. Psychological Science, Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: 13, 532–536. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00493 The evolved psychology of relationship mainte- nance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.04.003 Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion moti- vate withdrawal or reconnection? Resolving the Mascaro, O., & Csibra, G. (2012). Representation of “porcupine problem.” Journal of Personality and stablePSYCHOLOGICAL social dominance relations by human infants. Social Psychology, 92, 42–55. doi:10.1037/0022- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 3514.92.1.42 109, 6862–6867. doi:10.1073/pnas.1113194109 Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., & Gailliot, M. T. (2008). Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Selective attention to signs of success: Social domi- Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. doi:10.1037/ nance and early stage interpersonal perception. h0054346 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, Mayr, E. (1976). Evolution and the diversity of life. 488–501. doi:10.1177/0146167207311910 AMERICAN © Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and domi- Adaptive attentional attunement: Evidence for nance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human 353–363. doi:10.1017/S0140525X98001228 Behavior, 28, 28–36. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. 2006.05.006 McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an PROOFS ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). Review, 90, 215–238. doi:10.1037/0033- The implicit cognition of relationship mainte- 295X.90.3.215 nance: Inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174–179. Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Grandparental doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.002 investment as a function of relational uncertainty and emotional closeness with parents. Human Nature, 16, Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. 293–305. doi:10.1007/s12110-005-1012-5 (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhe- sion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Miller, G. (2007). Reconciling evolutionary psychology Social Psychology, 93, 389–401. doi:10.1037/ and ecological psychology: How to perceive fitness UNCORRECTED0022-3514.93.3.389 affordances. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 546–555. Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190–198. Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01169-3 mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2010a). Evolution and rela- Social Psychology, 85, 1107–1120. doi:10.1037/ tionship maintenance: Fertility cues lead committed 0022-3514.85.6.1107 men to devalue relationship alternatives. Journal

40

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 40 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1081–1084. Navarrete, C. D., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2006). Disease doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.004 avoidance and ethnocentrism: The effects of disease Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2010b). Scent of a woman: vulnerability and disgust sensitivity on intergroup Male testosterone responses to female olfactory attitudes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276–283. 270–282. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.12.001 doi:10.1177/0956797609357733 Navarrete, C. D., Fessler, D. M. T., & Eng, S. J. (2007). Elevated ethnocentrism in the first trimester of preg- Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2011a). Ovulation as a nancy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 60–65. mating prime: Subtle signs of female fertility influ- doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.002 ence men’s mating cognition and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 295–308. Navarrete, C. D., McDonald, M. M., Molina, L. E., & doi:10.1037/a0020930 Sidanius, J. (2010). Prejudice at the nexus of race and gender: An out-group male target hypothesis. Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2011b). Sick body, vigilant Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, mind: The biological immune system activates the 933–945. doi:10.1037/a0017931 behavioral immune system. Psychological Science, 22, 1467–1471. doi:10.1177/0956797611420166 Navarrete, C. D., Olsson, A., Ho, A. K., Mendes, W. B., Thomsen, L., & Sidanius, J. (2009). Fear extinc- Miller, S. L., & Maner, J. K. (2012). Overperceiving tion to an out-group face: TheASSOCIATION role of target gender. disease cues: The basic cognition of the behavioral Psychological Science, 20, 155–158. doi:10.1111/ immune system. Journal of Personality and Social j.1467-9280.2009.02273.x Psychology, 102, 1198–1213. doi:10.1037/a0027198 Neel, R., Becker, D. V., Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, Miller, S. L., Maner, J. K., & Becker, D. V. (2010). Self- D. T. (2012). Who expressed what emotion? protective biases in group categorization: Threat cues Men grab anger, women grab happiness. Journal shape the psychological boundary between “us” and of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 583–586. “them.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.009 99, 62–77. doi:10.1037/a0018086 Nesse, R. M. (2005). Natural selection and the regulation Møller, A. P., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Bilateral symme- of defenses: A signal detection analysis of the smoke try and sexual selection: A meta-analysis. American PSYCHOLOGICALdetector principle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, Naturalist, 151, 174–192. doi:10.1086/286110 88–105. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.002 Moore, B. R. (2004). The evolution of learning. Biological Neuberg, S. L., Becker, D. V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 79, Evolutionary social cognition. In D. E. Carlston 301–335. doi:10.1017/S1464793103006225 (Ed.), Oxford handbook of social cognition (pp. 656–679). Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Neuberg, S. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Infection Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). breeds reticence: The effects of disease salienceAMERICAN on Evolutionary social psychology. In S. T. Fiske, D. self-perceptions of personality and behavioral© avoid- Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social ance tendencies. Psychological Science, 21, 440–447. ­psychology (pp. 761–796). New York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1177/0956797610361706 Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2011). Mumme, D. L., & Fernald, A. (2003). The infant Human threat management systems: Self- as onlooker: Learning from emotional reac- protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience and tions observed in a televisionPROOFS scenario. Child Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1042–1051. doi:10.1016/j. Development, 74, 221–237. doi:10.1111/1467- neubiorev.2010.08.011 8624.00532 New, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). Category- Murray, D. R., Trudeau, R., & Schaller, M. (2011). On specific attention for animals reflects ancestral the origins of cross-cultural differences in confor- priorities, not expertise. Proceedings of the National mity: Four tests of the pathogen prevalence hypoth- Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 16598–16603. esis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, doi:10.1073/pnas.0703913104 318–329. doi:10.1177/0146167210394451 Norenzayan, A., Schaller, M., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2008). Adaptive Evolution and culture. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, UNCORRECTEDmemory: Remembering with a stone-age brain. & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychol- Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, ogy (pp. 343–366). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 239–243. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00582.x Norenzayan, A., Schaller, S., & Heine, S. J. (2010). Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010). Adaptive Introduction. In M. Schaller, A. Norenzayan, S. J. memory: Ancestral priorities and the mnemonic Heine, T. Yamagishi, & T. Kameda (Eds.), Evolution, value of survival processing. Cognitive Psychology, culture, and the human mind (pp. 1–5). New York, 61, 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.01.005 NY: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

41

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 41 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2011). Disease Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, avoidance as a functional basis for stigmatization. N. S. (2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous London Series B: Biological Sciences, 366, 3433–3452. rating-scale, and physiological responses on the same doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0095 subjects. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 83–94. Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00078-2 drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate. New York, NY: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, Penguin. 466–478. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature. New Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and York, NY: Viking. preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and Plant, E. A., Goplen, J., & Kunstman, J. W. (2011). fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522. Selective responses to threat: The roles of race doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.483 and gender in decisions to shoot. Personality Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1274–1281. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence doi:10.1177/0146167211408617 of learned fear. Science, 309, 785–787. doi:10.1126/ Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G., Jr., Mohamed, science.1113551 F. B., Thomson, J. W., Myers, T. E.,ASSOCIATION . . . Arigo, D. R. Park, J., Schaller, M., & Van Vugt, M. (2008). The (2004). Reactions to children’s faces: Males are more psychology of human kin recognition: Heuristic affected by resemblance than females are, and so are cues, erroneous inferences, and their implica- their brains. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, tions. Review of General Psychology, 12, 215–235. 394–405. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.007 doi:10.1037/1089-2680.12.3.215 Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Nelissen, M. (2007). Maternal Park, J. H., Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2003). grandmothers do go the extra mile: Factoring dis- Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contem- tance and lineage into differential contact with porary anti-social behavior: Prejudicial attitudes grandchildren. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 832–843. and avoidance of people with physical disabili- Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. ties. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27, 65–87. (1994).PSYCHOLOGICAL Social dominance orientation: A personality doi:10.1023/A:1023910408854 variable predicting social and political attitudes. Park, J. H., & Schaller, M. (2005). Does attitude similarity Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, serve as a heuristic cue for kinship? Evidence of an 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741 implicit cognitive association. Evolution and Human Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012). Evidence Behavior, 26, 158–170. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. of motivational influences in early visual 2004.08.013 AMERICANperceptions: Hunger modulates conscious Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). access. Psychological Science, 23, 232–234. Pathogen-avoidance mechanisms and the© stig- doi:10.1177/0956797611427920 matization of obese people. Evolution and Human Ratcliff, N. J., Bernstein, M. J., Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, Behavior, 28, 410–414. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbe- T. K. (2012). Seeing wrath from the top (through hav.2007.05.008 stratified lenses): Perceivers high in social domi- Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perrett, D.PROOFS I. (2000). Female pref- nance orientation show superior anger identification erence for male faces changes cyclically: Further for high-status individuals. Journal of Experimental evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48. Social Psychology, 48, 1373–1376. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00033-1 Ratcliff, N. J., Hugenberg, K., Shriver, E., & Bernstein, Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. M. J. (2011). The allure of power: The effect of status on (2012). The misperception of sexual inter- face memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, est. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151. 37, 1003–1015. doi:10.1177/0146167211407210 doi:10.1177/0956797611424162 Reid, S. A., Zhang, J., Anderson, G. A., Gasiorek, J., Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Bonilla, D., & Peinado, S. (2012). Parasite primes UNCORRECTEDThe daughter guarding hypothesis: Parental influ- make foreign-accented English sound more distant to ence on, and emotional reactions to, offspring’s mat- people who are disgusted by pathogens (but not by ing behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 217–233. sex or morality). Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. 471–478. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.12.009 (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and Richerson, P., & Boyd, R. (1995, January). The evolu- enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality tion of human hypersociality. Paper for Ringberg and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1095–1107. Castle Symposium on Ideology, Warfare and doi:10.1177/0146167203262085 Indoctrinability.

42

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 42 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

Roney, J. R., Lukaszewski, A. W., & Simmons, Z. L. Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2008). Intergroup preju- (2007). Rapid endocrine responses of young dices and intergroup conflicts. In C. Crawford & D. men to social interactions with young women. L. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology: Hormones and Behavior, 52, 326–333. doi:10.1016/j. Ideas, applications, and applications (pp. 401–414). yhbeh.2007.05.008 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rule, N. O., Rosen, K. S., Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, Schaller, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2012). Danger, disease, and N. (2011). Mating interest improves women’s the nature of prejudice(s). Advances in Experimental accuracy in judging male sexual orienta- Social Psychology, 46, 1–55. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12- tion. Psychological Science, 22, 881–886. 394281-4.00001-5 doi:10.1177/0956797611412394 Schaller, M., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). & Kenrick, D. T. (2010). Pyramid power. Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 335–337. of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738. doi:10.1177/1745691610369474 doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.730 Schaller, M., & Park, J. H. (2011). The behavioral Sagarin, B. J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex dif- immune system (and why it matters). Current ferences in jealousy: Comment on Harris (2003). Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 99–103. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 62–75. doi:10.1177/0963721411402596ASSOCIATION doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5 Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Faulkner, J. (2003). Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, Prehistoric dangers and contemporary prejudices. L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 105–137. similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence doi:10.1080/10463280340000036 of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the infidelity. , 17–23. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24 dark: Interactive effects of beliefs about danger and doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00106-X ambient darkness on ethnic stereotypes. Personality Salmon, C. (2005). Parental investment and parent- and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637–649. offspring conflict. In D. M. Buss (Ed.),The handbook doi:10.1177/0146167203029005008 (pp. 506–527). Hoboken, of evolutionary psychology Schmitt,PSYCHOLOGICAL D. P., & Pilcher, J. J. (2004). Evaluating evi- NJ: Wiley. dence of psychological adaptation: How do we know Schaller, M. (2011). The behavioural immune system one when we see one? Psychological Science, 15, 643– and the psychology of human sociality. Philosophical 649. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00734.x Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Biological Sciences, 366, 3418–3426. doi:10.1098/ Emotional reactions to infidelity.Cognition and Emotion, rstb.2011.0029 AMERICAN 14, 643–659. doi:10.1080/02699930050117657 Schaller, M., & Abeysinghe, A. M. N. D. (2006). Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing Geographical frame of reference and© dangerous cute images increases behavioral carefulness. intergroup attitudes: A double-minority study Emotion, 9, 282–286. doi:10.1037/a0014904 in Sri Lanka. Political Psychology, 27, 615–631. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00521.x Shidlovski, D., & Hassin, R. R. (2011). When poop- ing babies become more appealing: The effects Schaller, M., & Duncan, L. A. (2007). The behavioral PROOFS of nonconscious goal pursuit on experienced immune system: Its evolution and social psychological emotions. Psychological Science, 22, 1381–1385. implications. In J. P. Forgas, M. G. Haselton, & W. doi:10.1177/0956797611417135 von Hippel (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and social cognition (pp. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An 293–307). New York, NY: Psychology Press. intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppres- sion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2008). Pathogens, person- doi:10.1017/CBO9781139175043 ality and culture: Disease prevalence predicts world- wide variability in sociosexuality, extraversion, and Sidanius, J., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race openness to experience. Journal of Personality and discrimination: The interactive nature of disadvan- UNCORRECTEDSocial Psychology, 95, 212–221. doi:10.1037/0022- tage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and dis- 3514.95.1.212 crimination (pp. 47–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schaller, M., & Murray, D. R. (2011). Infectious disease Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). and the creation of culture. In M. Gelfand, C.-Y. Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms Chiu, & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and involved in the maintenance of romantic relation- psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 99–151). New York, NY: ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, Oxford University Press. 1192–1201. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1192

43

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 43 25/10/13 7:27 PM Neuberg and Schaller

Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Kuo, S. I., Sung, S., & The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science, Collins, W. A. (2012). Evolution, stress, and sensi- 18, 19–23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01842.x tive periods: The influence of unpredictability in Vohs, K. D., & Luce, M. F. (2010). Judgment and deci- early versus late childhood on sex and risky behavior. sion making. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel Developmental Psychology, 48, 674–686. (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the Stearns, S. (1992). The evolution of life histories. science (pp. 733–756). Oxford, England: Oxford Cambridge, England: Oxford University Press. University Press. Stearns, S. C. (1976). Life-history tactics: A review of Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Cwir, D., & Spencer, S. J. the ideas. Quarterly Review of Biology, 51, 3–47. (2012). Mere belonging: The power of social con- doi:10.1086/409052 nections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sugiyama, L. S., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2002). 102, 513–532. doi:10.1037/a0025731 Cross-cultural evidence of cognitive adaptations for Webster, G. D. (2003). Prosocial behavior in fami- social exchange among the Shiwiar of Ecuadorian lies: Moderators of resource sharing. Journal of Amazonia. Proceedings of the National Academy Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 644–652. of Sciences, USA, 99, 11537–11542. doi:10.1073/ doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00055-6 pnas.122352999 Welling, L. L. M., Conway, C. A., DeBruine,ASSOCIATION L. M., & Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, Jones, B. C. (2007). Perceived vulnerability to dis- T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). ease predicts variation in preferences for apparent Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend- health in faces. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, and-befriend, not fight-or-flight.Psychological 131–139. doi:10.1556/JEP.2007.1012 , 411–429. doi:10.1037/0033- Review, 107 Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender dif- 295X.107.3.411 ferences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, Sociobiology, 13, 115–124. doi:10.1016/0162- & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–136). 3095(92)90021-U New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wiesenfeld, A. R., Malatesta, C. Z., & Deloach, L. L. Tooley, G. A., Karakis, M., Stokes, M., & Ozanne-Smith, (1981).PSYCHOLOGICAL Differential parental response to familiar J. (2006). Generalising the Cinderella effect to unin- and unfamiliar infant distress signals. Infant Behavior tentional childhood fatalities. Evolution and Human and Development, 4, 281–295. doi:10.1016/S0163- Behavior, 27, 224–230. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav. 6383(81)80030-6 2005.10.001 Wolfe, N. D., Dunavan, C. P., & Diamond, J. (2007). Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2008). The nonverbal Origins of major human infectious diseases. Nature, expression of pride: Evidence for cross-culturalAMERICAN rec- 447 , 279–283. doi:10.1038/nature05775 ognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Wrangham, R. W. (1987). The significance of African , 516–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.516© 94 apes for reconstructing human social evolution. In Turke, P., & Betzig, L. (1985). Those who can do: W. G. Kinzey (Ed.), The evolution of human behavior: Wealth, status, and reproductive success in Primate models (pp. 51–71). Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Ifaluk. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 79–87. Wrangham, R. W., & Peterson, D. (1996). Demonic males: doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90001-9 PROOFS Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston, MA: Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion Houghton Mifflin. in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Young, S. G., Sacco, D. F., & Hugenberg, K. (2011). , 1039–1061. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106 Vulnerability to disease is associated with a domain- doi:10.2307/2937956 specific preference for symmetrical faces relative to Van Bavel, J. J., & Cunningham, W. A. (2009). Self- symmetrical non-face stimuli. European Journal of categorization with a novel mixed-race group moder- Social Psychology, 41, 558–563. doi:10.1002/ejsp.800 ates automatic social and racial biases. Personality Zebrowitz, L. A., Fellous, J. M., Mignault, A., & , 321–335. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35 Andreoletti, C. (2003). Trait impressions as over- doi:10.1177/0146167208327743 UNCORRECTED generalized responses to adaptively significant facial van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Leveling up and down: The experiences of Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 194–215. benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9, 419–429. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0703_01 doi:10.1037/a0015669 Zebrowitz, L. A., Kikuchi, M., & Fellous, J. M. (2010). Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D., & Janssen, D. P. (2007). Facial resemblance to emotions: Group differences, Gender differences in cooperation and competition: impression effects, and race stereotypes. Journal

44

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 44 25/10/13 7:27 PM Evolutionary Social Cognition

of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 175–189. Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of doi:10.1037/a0017990 social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. (2006). The ecologi- relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and cal approach to person perception: Evolutionary liked. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, roots and contemporary offshoots. In M. Schaller, 102, 98–115. doi:10.1037/a0025345 J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 81–113). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

ASSOCIATION

PSYCHOLOGICAL

AMERICAN ©

PROOFS

UNCORRECTED

45

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 45 25/10/13 7:27 PM ASSOCIATION

PSYCHOLOGICAL

AMERICAN ©

PROOFS

UNCORRECTED

BK-APA-HPS-V1-131228-Chp01.indd 46 25/10/13 7:27 PM