Altruistic behaviour can also be seen in modern-day humans and is linked to natural selection (Clegg, 2007) . Altruism can be described as an act a person undertakes which benefits another individual at a cost to the person performing that act. This however, means that by performing an altruistic act on a close family member who is likely to share your genes, especially an act which helps them survive to a reproductive age, you are more likely to aid the successful inheritance of that gene in future generations (Clegg, 2007) Altruism is believed to be adaptive (Clegg, 2007).
Sexual selection differs from natural selection as it is dependant on the amount and quality of sexual mates an individual can attract, not purely on the survival success of an individual (Gangestad and Thornhill, 1997 as cited in Clegg, 2007). The more mates attracted, means the more offspring that can be produced (dominantly in males) and the higher the quality of mate could ensure a higher quality of parent to the offspring. This also raises the probability of the successful adaptive gene being passed on to future generations which means a higher probability of survival and reproductive success for the offspring.
Sexual selection can be divided into two mechanisms, intrasexual selection (contests) and intersexual selection (mate choice). It is intersexual selection that evolutionary psychologists conduct the most research in. (Clegg, 2007). Using this research, we can see examples of sexual selection in modern-day behaviour by explaining the roles of male and females in relationships. Using parental investment which is usually the human female investing the most in the child compared with human males, we can understand the behaviour of both sexes. For example, for the human female, the choice of mate is usually determined by quality, measured by the ability of the male to provide resources or due to their adaptive characteristics. This affects the reproductive success of the female. However, human males who invest less in their offspring, would be more likely to be interested in the quantity of partners to maximise the number of offspring in order to achieve reproductive success. This means that female behaviour would include them searching for long-term partners whilst the male would generally be interested in short-term relationships (Clegg, 2007).
The interpersonal approach to mating can also be linked to an ability which has developed in modern-day humans called theory of mind. This ability is present in most humans (studies have shown that people with autism lack in the ability of theory of mind) and enables us to think in the place of another human-being enough to predict their actions (Clegg, 2007) This is an excellent example of how sexual selection can influence modern-day behaviour. This ability can enable the individual to use deceitful behaviour in order to gain more sexual partners (Clegg, 2007). An example of this could be a male who wishes to date a female who is attracted to those who display a high level of ambition. The male, using his theory of mind to put himself in her position, could intentionally lie about his line of work or plans for the future in order to become attractive to the female and be successful in achieving her as a short-term sexual partner.
Natural selection and sexual selection are both survival adaptations which are present in human-beings which enable us to ensure that successful genes, genes which have successfully adapted to our environment to ensure our survival and reproductive successes, are inherited by our successive generations. These adaptations have had a significant impact on the behaviour of modern-day humans. This includes the act of altruism and the theory of mind. There are criticisms of evolutionary biology however, as using these processes, human behaviour is explained by genetics and it seems to suggest that humans do not act under free will. It is also argued that it does not take into account environmental factors but evolutionary psychologists would reply that it merely suggests that genes predisposition humans to act in certain ways although they would not necessarily always act in these ways.
References
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p116). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p144). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p145). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p152). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p125). Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p126). Milton Keynes: The Open University
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p121). Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Clegg, H. (2007). Evolutionary Psychology. In D. Miell, A Phoenix, & K. Thomas. Mapping Psychology (2nd ed., p143). Milton Keynes: The Open University
TMA02 Section II Methods Excercises
Question 1
1(a) Attractiveness, asymmetry
1(b), (ii), negative
1(c), (ii), strong
1(d), (iii), people rated as more attractive tend to have more symmetric faces
1(e), This particular participant’s score on asymmetry was very low however, so was her attractiveness rating. This did not follow the trend of all other 24 participants, as generally, the lower the asymmetric score of a participant, the higher on the attractiveness rating she scored. This was therefore an anomalous result. This one point therefore affects the overall coefficiency by affecting the standard deviation. Removing the anomalous result would result in a correlation coefficient which would be nearer to -1 (perfect positive correlation).
1(f), Because Mark designed this experiment, he knew what the objective was and so was not a naïve participant. He knew that he was trying to explore a link between symmetry of the face and attractiveness and so subconsciously could take into account how symmetrical he thought the participant’s face was by looking at it before he rated her attractiveness. Also, as he already knew the participants, their personality could have affected his rating. For example, it would be harder for him to find a participant attractive if he disliked aspects of her personality. This would then have an impact on his results.
Question 2
2(a), (iii) The type of session (with or without mobile phone)
2(b), (ii) The average time taken to respond to target stimuli in each session
(v) How many target stimuli were detected in each session
2(c) (iii) within participants, because all participants did sessions 1 and 2
2(d) (i) The number of target stimuli that appeared during each session
(ii)The length of time spent on the telephone by the participant during session 2.
2(e) (i) practice on the particular sequence of stimuli
(v) time of day of the session
2(f) I would present the participants with two different sequences, both with 5 target pictorial stimuli, appearing for the same amount of time (1/2 second) with a 100 msec gap between a new picture appearing. This means that they would have no indication when the target stimuli would appear and so no advantage in the second session, although all other factors would stay the same. Also, I would conduct the first session at a specific point in the day, eg 10am, and the second session at 10am the following day as there is evidence that time of day may affect performance (Open University, 2007). Therefore, the time of day for both sessions should be the same.
2(g) Some possible reasons maybe; before the second session, where the independent variable was introduced, the participants had a coffee break. The intake of caffeine therefore could have had a stimulant effect on the participants, making them more alert and therefore giving them a slight advantage this time around. This mean that where the mobile phone was a distraction, the advantage of the coffee could have balanced this out, making the scores from both sessions more even. Also, the participants may have an advantage in the second session due to them having to identify the stimuli in the same sequence due to practice effects.
Question 3
I would use a within-participants design as I need to measure the difference a mnemonic would make to the experiment. Therefore, I need to use the same participant twice in order to measure the difference it makes to each participant. I would give 20 participants each 2 lists of 10, 4 digit numbers, one list in each session (there are 2 sessions) which are held 30 seconds apart. The first list comprises of just 10, 4 digit numbers randomly put together by myself. The second list comprises of 10, 4 digit numbers again, but by the side of each one, a mnemonic, also devised by myself. They will be given 60 seconds in order to remember the first set of numbers. The numbers will be taken away at that time and they are given 1 point for each correct 4 digit number recited in 60 seconds. The process will be exactly the same for the second set of numbers, using the same timescales. The only difference will be the independent variable (IV) which is the mnemonic which they should use to aid them in remembering the corresponding number. The difference in scores in the 2 lists will be compared with each other and scatterplot created. The dependent variable (DV) would be the number of four digit numbers recalled in both sessions. A confounding variable could be that the participants have had practice recalling numbers in the first session, and so could potentially score higher on the second set of lists even without the IV. To counterbalance this I would make sure that all 4 digit numbers in the first list are different to those in the second list, or have half the group memorise the first group of numbers first and the other half start with the second list. I could ask them to participate in both the sessions but a day apart, to make sure that practice does not have an effect. However, this could produce it’s own confounding variables as the participant could be affected by different levels of mood or differencing amounts of sleep for example. A problem with Interpreting the findings is does it really tell me anything about PIN numbers as it explores 4 digit numbers? Perhaps I should have related each 4 digit number with a credit type card as this shows that they can remember the correct number with the corresponding card. t
References
Open University (2007). Correlation Studies and Experiments. In Open University Course Team. Exploring Psychological Research Methods ( p75). Milton Keynes: The Open University