This essay will now explore the particular range of scientific methods used by evolutionary psychologists, together with other fields of study, to gain insight into how the traits of cognitive and social abilities evolved.
Concentrating within the multi methods approach used by evolutionary psychologists –the Machiavellian Hypothesis (Whiten and Byrne,1997) is an excellent example. This shows how evolutionary principles together with the assumptions that early human societies were complex, led to inferences being made of what the effects might be. The use of observations within primate and human societies was done in conjuction with this. This method of obtaining evidence is known as Hypothetico-deductive reasoning and testing. The Machiavellian Hypothesis is not one, but a “group of hypotheses that supported the notion that intelligence began in social manipulation, deceit and cunning co-operation.” (Mapping Psychology1, Page 123).
This hypothesis was pre-empted by Humphrey in 1976 who differentiated between high (creative) and low level intelligence. Humphrey, an evolutionary psychologist, used the method of ‘reverse engineering’ (also known as ‘functional analysis’) which queries why a particular behaviour or trait has evolved. In this instance questioning why cognitive and social abilities emerged. By Whiten and Byrne using Humphrey’s hypothesis highlights again that evolutionary psychology is a multi methods approach.
Both Humphrey, Whiten and Byrne viewed humans as living in a socially complex society, where society may be viewed as the environment in which people are living and surviving. Their survival would have been based on problems being solved. Those problems would also include day to day living of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Over time new problems would have emerged and thus new manners of solving these problems. Humphrey hypothesised that a different kind of intelligence – creative or higher intelligence was needed. He noted that higher intelligence was apparent in higher primates (like the chimpanzee and human). This higher intelligence may also be seen as cognitive abilities. These abilities enabled survival by people being able to infer consequences within a new situation by drawing on past combination of occurrences. The adaptive value in having this higher intelligence was predominantly to keep a cohesive socially complex group. Thus, promoting survival of the group and the individual. Therefore, cognitive and social abilities are inter-dependent in this example since the hunter-gather lifestyle relies on individuals co-operating within a group scenario. However for the group to survive, cognitive abilities to solve problems are also necessary. The adaptive value being that of group cohesion. In this way abilities changed for a purpose and had a real function. Thus, evolution of cognitive and social abilities took place.
Developmental psychologists also used hypothetico-deductive reasoning to show how the lack of cognitive abilities affects social functioning. Once again showing that evolutionary psychology is a multi method approach. Baron-Cohen (1990) used the example of autism in children to show that humans have the ability to mind read and have empathy. “The child’s ability to read other’s minds, communicate and use imagination are affected. Children with autism are unable to understand a speaker’s communicative intentions, are unable to ‘read between the lines’, fail to understand jokes, and cannot ammend their speech to fit the listener’s context such as their knowledge, interest, expectations and so on.” (Mapping Psychology 1, page 128) This shows us that ‘normal’ social participation is not possible by children with autism. Thus, cognitive and social skills are linked. The functional adaption of being able to participate within a group is lacking in this case – highlighting that evolution was stunted. Furthermore, this example brings to the fore that social abilities and their effectiveness lies within the Theory of Mind.
Reverse engineering (functional analysis) is the main method used by Premack and Woodruff (1978) to re-iterate that higher primates have the cognitive ability of higher intelligence and are able to read another’s mind. This being the crux of the Theory of Mind. Evaluation of this theory shows plausibly that an adaptive or reproductive value evolved. Essentially, primates have the ability of empathy. Whiten and Byrne (1997) agreed that individuals have the ability “…to respond to assumptions about the beliefs and desires of another individual, rather that in direct response to the other’s overt behaviour.” (Mapping Psychology 1, 2002, page 126) The use of a different method of research based on evolutionary principles highlights yet again that the cognitive ability of higher intelligence is inter-dependent on social skills. This higher intelligence enables the individual to co-operate or not within group. Thus having an adaptive value and is therefore linked in evolution.
Premack (1988) tested the Theory of Mind by studying the chimpanzee, Sarah. Sarah was shown videotapes of an actor trying to solve the problem of reaching bananas. She was shown different photographs as a solution to reach the photographs. The most effective solution being to stand on a chair. Sarah chose this solution enough times to exclude chance. She obviously understood the intentions of the actor in the video. Other studies revealed that children by the age of four show this ability of understanding the intentions of others. This shows that humans and chimpanzees (higher primates) have the cognitive ability of higher intelligence. Inferences are made on this basis by developmental psychologists that these cognitive abilities enable the individual, at approximately age four, to become a more active member within the social group. Thus cognitive and social abilities are linked in evolution since they have an adaptive value.
Empirical testing was another method used by Cosmides (1998) when he viewed the mind as having different compartments which are linked. These compartments (modules) have different functions and features. These features and functions having developed from are ancestors, thus having an adaptive value. This concept is termed the modular mind. Cosmides and Tooby (1992) stated that the “…human mind contains functionally specialized, content-dependent cognitive adaptions for social exchange.” Thus, cognitive and social abilities related. They would thus be linked in evolution since they have an adaptive value.
Gergerenzer (1997) also used empirical testing when exploring the social contract within a hunter-gatherer society. The social contract being perhaps exchanging of food or handling money. This example infers that the modules (cognitive abilities) have adapted over time to solve specific problems. This highlights that although the social contract might have become more complex over time, cognitive abilities (modules) still concentrate on benefiting the individual – the individual weighing up the pro’s and cons of behaviour. Evolutionary psychologists use the term ‘reciprocal altruism’ (Mapping Psychology 1, 2002) to explain that not only benefiting oneself but also others would have been valuable in keeping group cohesion and therefore surviving.
From the above examples it is clear that that the most common method which is present in each, is that of logical inference. The origins and development of both cognitive and social skills are discussed against the backdrop of evolutionary principles.
Evolution as a “ … theory of change” (Smith and Stevens: Mapping Psychology, 2002) together with the underlying principles of evolutionary psychology in this essay shows how our ancestors shaped the evolution of our present day social and cognitive abilities. From the scientific methods used by evolutionary psychologists and the various examples that have been explored, it becomes quite clear that cognitive and social abilities are linked in evolution.
References
-
Miel, D, Phoenix, A and Thomas, K (2002) Mapping Psychology 1, London/
The Open University
Part 2: Statistics
Question 1
a) 4
b) 3
c) 2
d) 6
a) 6
b) 4
c) 6
d) 6
- mean = 5.4
standard deviation = 1.66
- mean = 4.1
standard deviation = 1.55
- the chimps
Question 2
- Between
- Whether the game contained football skills or a great deal of conflict.
c) Manipulated by dividing into 2 separate groups.
The IV contains 2 conditions – whether the game contained football skills or a great deal of conflict
d) The enjoyment of the game
- The participants had to indicate their enjoyment by choosing a value on a 20- point scale.
Therefore, continuous data.
- Perhaps the football team contained a high profile players.
This could then be another reason for the enjoyment of the game.
- The control would have to be that the football team contained no high profile players, thus excluding this as a reason for the enjoyment of the game being watched.
Question 3
- Within
- Football competition
- Manipulated IV by dividing boys into red and blue teams. The effect being groups being formed and thus the ability to note either ingroup cohesion or out group hostility.
- Allocation of monetary award
- Categorical
- Previous football skills could be a confounding variable.
If one of the groups had particularly good players they would have an advantage to winning the competition.
b) This can be eliminated by ensuring that all the boys are on the same skill level by having trials and specific grading of skills before choosing participants.
