The evolutionary theory presents good ultimate explanations for the possible origins of psychological phenomena like theory of mind and how it evolved to its current high level of complexity. However, this theory has been criticized for focusing too much on biological and genetic aspects without giving enough attention to socio-cultural environments. The evolutionary approach counterbalances these critiques supporting the idea that the mind has evolved an ability to generate and transmit cultural behaviours (Clegg, 2007).
Not only the evolution but also the adaptive function of theory of mind is relevant to evolutionary psychologists. Humans are highly social and therefore developed complex psychological traits that enable effective interaction in society. The ability to predict how others feel or think and to act deceptively improves survival and increases reproductive success (Clegg, 2007). By acting deceptively individuals may gain competitive advantages over others. Also by putting themselves mentally in the place of another, individuals effectively collaborate and interact in social situations that would benefit themselves and possibly their offspring (as cited in Clegg, 2007, p.133). Theory of mind is required in a high number of social interactions such as avoiding failed communication, intentionally deceiving and persuading others, pretending and teaching (as cited in Clegg, 2007, p.139). The ability to manipulate social relationships help individuals gain resources and status, obtain sexual partners and form alliances enhancing reproduction and survival (Clegg, 2007). These claims are supported by findings from studies on autism and theory of mind conducted by Baron-Cohen, who suggests that difficulties with language and social relationships may be due to lack of theory of mind abilities (as cited in Clegg, 2007, p.139).
A deeper understanding of the adaptive function of theory of mind comes from analysing the implications of a lower level or absence of this ability from studies with children and other primates. A good example that involves testing false believes and deception is Wimmer and Perner’s Maxi test. This test and all its variations show how theory of mind helps individuals understand false beliefs and act deceitfully to get advantages over others (Clegg, 2007). However, detractors of the Maxi test criticize its complexity, its lack of ecological validity and the fact that false-belief comprehension is seen as the only component of theory of mind (Clegg, 2007).
Theory of mind is a relevant aspect of what makes humans similar to each other across cultures and different from non-human animals. Bringing together various strands of evidence from symbolic, material and behavioural data, the evolutionary perspective pieces together the explanation for the evolution and adaptive function of theory of mind. Evolutionary research shows how cognition, biology and social environment affect each other and are all centrally relevant to the evolution of this ability. The search for ultimate explanations of why theory of mind exists and how it helps individuals to transmit the genes for this trait to future generations will always remain one of most important areas of interest in evolutionary psychology.
Words: 999
References:
Bjorklund, David F., & Pellegrini, Anthony D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Duntley, J.D. (2005). Adaptations to Dangers from Humans. In D.M. Buss (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 224-249). John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, N.J.
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A. Phoenix, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 105-160). Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Part II: Methods exercises
Question 1:
Q1, (a) the nutritional rating of the packed lunch box allocated to the x-axis and the mean response time per slide in milliseconds allocated to the y-axis
Q1, (b), (ii) negative
Q1, (c), (iii) medium
Q1, (d), (iv) speed of responding in a distraction task in the afternoon is a fair predictor of the nutritional quality of a child’s packed lunch
Q1, (e), (i) positive. The correlation between these two variables is positive, which means that the higher the nutritional value of the lunch, the higher accuracy on the distraction task. We might predict that as the nutritional value of the packed lunch increases, the accuracy on the distraction task will too.
Q1, (f) Parents knowing what has been investigated could have made them try to influence the outcome of the research by giving their own child a healthier lunch box than they otherwise would. For this reason it needs to be taken into consideration that some of the variables could have been altered. This could result in a higher number of correct answers, a lower rate of distractibility and a faster response time. All this could affect the correlation coefficients between variables, for example, making the correlation between the lunch box rating and the response time scores stronger.
Q1, (g) These variables are related to a big extent (strongly related). The correlation coefficient
-0.861 shows that the correlation between the nutritional value of packed lunch and the ratings of distractibility is negative, which means the higher the nutritional value of the lunch, the lower the rating of distractibility.
This very strong relationship between these two variables could have several possible reasons. One reason could be the fact that the low nutritional value of the lunch might be directly affecting the concentration of the children. Also other variables that were not measured in this study might be involved as well, affecting the two analysed variables. One example would be that those children receiving healthier lunches might come from a more stable and healthier familiar background, where sport, proper sleeping hours, healthy food and various activities to promote the learning of the children were very important. This would mean that not only the nutritional value of the lunch could be causing changes on the level of distractibility but also changes in other variables could be independently causing changes in the ratings of distraction (e.g. hours of sleep the children get at home, familiar background, sport activities, etc.).
Another possible reason could be that the relationship between the nutritional value of the lunch and the level of distractibility are spurious which, even when possible, would have in this study a very low chance to be the case.
Q1, (h) The correlation coefficient would still remain negative. However, through the removal of child 7 and child 8 the negative coefficient would get stronger (maybe closer to -0.450 instead of -0.346). These two children where the two isolated cases where the results of the analysis of the correlation between the two variables seem to be contradictory compared to the results of the other children. Child number 7 was meant to have a lunch with a very high nutritional value and such a slow response time was weakening the correlation coefficient. In the case of child number 8, his results were also weakening the correlation coefficient because he had a lunch with very low nutritional level and his response time was very fast. Knowing that he made very fast indiscriminate responses makes his results invalid. The removal of the two children from the study leads to a stronger correlation coefficient between the variables.
Question 2:
Q2, (a), (iii) whether participants read newspaper reports with subtle or blatant changes
Q2, (b), (vi) the accuracy score for the critical questions
Q2, (c), (iv) between participants because some participants read the ‘blatant change’ newspaper report and some read the ‘subtle change’ one
Q2, (d), (ii) the length of time spent on the distraction task and (iii) the number of inaccurate changes made in the two newspaper reports
Q2, (e), (i) the time of day at which the first part of the experiment (Stages 1 and 2) was completed and (v) the gender of the participants
Q2, (f) The best way to eliminate the confounding effects would be to make sure both conditions go through the phases of the experiment at the same time of day avoiding the fatigue effects being higher in one condition than in the other. In this case David ran phase 1 and 2 of the experiment one evening after work. The participants in this condition might have been more tired or stressed than Emily’s participants who went through Stages 1 and 2 one morning whilst their children were at nursery school. Also the random allocation of participants to each condition is missing. A between-participants design has been used to conduct this experiment and it should have been necessary to minimize the differences between the participants. Allocating the participants randomly would have minimized age and gender differences between them.
Q2, (g) Because the variable being measured in this experiment (dependent variable) is the accuracy score on the critical questions and not the accuracy score on the filler questions, despite the fact that Emily’s participants made more mistakes on the filler questions than David’s participants did, this finding would not have any impact on the conclusions drawn from the study.
Question 3:
Q3. The first step is to establish what will be measured as the dependent variable (e.g. number of correct answers in a multiple choice test) and what will be manipulated by the experimenter as the independent variable (vocal and non-vocal music). It is important to narrow down the range of possible students by specifying nationality, gender, age and what subject they are studying so that the participants are representative of a wider group. The sample should be large enough to enable the generalization of the findings. Even when there is no risk of individual differences as the same participants are used in both conditions, there are differences in participants over time. For this reason, it is important to use sufficient participants to ensure that their average behaviour overcomes differences over time. It is also relevant to define what the students are meant to read (e.g. a chapter about research methods) and how much time they have to perform this task. The researcher should control how much understanding of research methods the participants already possess and ensure that they did not learn about methods outside the experimental setting. All variables need to be defined into measurable factors.
To remove all possible confounding variables it is necessary that both conditions present the same social situation (students sitting in small groups or in isolation), they are confronted with the same learning material and the reading in both conditions takes place at the same time of the day. The participants should be given the conditions in different orders to counterbalance the practice effect. Also the order in which the material is presented should be randomised to maximize the potential effect of the independent variable and minimize the potential effect of order effects. We can expect participants to perform better in the second condition and it could affect the dependent variable.
The experimenter should remain objective without trying to influence the outcome. Instructions should be given in a standard way for both conditions without giving away anything that could influence the participants. The duration of the experiment should not be too long to avoid fatigue effects.
Words: 350