Evolutionary Theory and the Ultimate–Proximate Distinction in the Human          Behavioral Sciences

Scott‐Phillips, Thomas C.; Dickins, Thomas E.; West, Stuart A.

doi:10.1177/1745691610393528

Cited by 383 publications

(257 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

254

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rejection of models like the DBM in favor of explanation by agency echoes a long-standing debate in evolutionary biology over the levels of causation (89)(90)(91)(92)(93). In behavioral science, ultimate explanations view behavior as a product of natural selection (cultural and biological) whereas proximate explanations attempt to understand how individuals identify challenges, make decisions, and initiate action (this being the realm of agency).…”

Section: Ecological Models Accommodate Humanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Gremillion

Barton

Piperno

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

131

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction of new analytic methods and expansion of research into previously untapped regions have greatly increased the scale and resolution of data relevant to the origins of agriculture (OA). As a result, the recognition of varied historical pathways to agriculture and the continuum of management strategies have complicated the search for general explanations for the transition to food production. In this environment, higher-level theoretical frameworks are sometimes rejected on the grounds that they force conclusions that are incompatible with real-world variability. Some of those who take this position argue instead that OA should be explained in terms of local and historically contingent factors. This retreat from theory in favor of particularism is based on the faulty beliefs that complex phenomena such as agricultural origins demand equally complex explanations and that explanation is possible in the absence of theoretically based assumptions. The same scholars who are suspicious of generalization are reluctant to embrace evolutionary approaches to human behavior on the grounds that they are ahistorical, overly simplistic, and dismissive of agency and intent. We argue that these criticisms are misplaced and explain why a coherent theory of human behavior that acknowledges its evolutionary history is essential to advancing understanding of OA. Continued progress depends on the integration of human behavior and culture into the emerging synthesis of evolutionary developmental biology that informs contemporary research into plant and animal domestication. evolutionary theory | behavioral ecologyOver the last decade there has been a major expansion of knowledge regarding the timing and socioecological context of plant domestication and emerging agricultural systems. This wealth of data is due in large part to methodological innovations (e.g., in genetics and paleogenomics, in the analysis of plant micro-and macroremains and biological residues, and in the physical and biogeochemical analyses of anthropogenic sediments), reexcavations of some important archaeological sites, and the expansion of archaeological research into regions whose record of agricultural origins has been until recently poorly known [such as New Guinea (1, 2), lowland areas of Mesoamerica and northern South America (3-7), and northern and southern China (8-13)]. These research activities have enriched both the scale and resolution of the data relevant to agricultural origins worldwide. One result of this welcome enhancement of the empirical record is wider acknowledgment of the variability in the historical pathways taken by emerging food production systems across space and time. The dichotomy between foraging and food production has been discarded in favor of a continuum of landscape, plant, and animal management strategies that sometimes resist classification. However, for some scholars (2, 14), the richly detailed records of change seem to have dampened the appeal of general explanations for the transition to agriculture. This tr...

show abstract

Section: Ecological Models Accommodate Humanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Gremillion

Barton

Piperno

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

131

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers coming from sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have typically argued that culture is proximate: a mechanism set up by genes to maximise inclusive fitness (Dickins and Rahman 2012;El Mouden et al 2014;Scott-Phillips et al 2011). There is merit in this argument: after all, the capacity for culture evolved genetically because it increased inclusive fitness, as explored by numerous gene-culture coevolution analyses Richerson 1985, 1995).…”

Section: Is Culture Proximate or Ultimate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cultural evolution researchers are sometimes accused of making overblown claims about the causal role of culture in explaining human behaviour (Dickins and Rahman 2012;El Mouden et al 2014;Scott-Phillips et al 2011). This is typically placed within the context of the proximate-ultimate distinction (Mayr 1961;Tinbergen 1963).…”

Section: Is Culture Proximate or Ultimate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades have seen an explosion in research analysing cultural change as a Darwinian evolutionary process. Here I provide an overview of the theory of cultural evolution, including its intellectual history, major theoretical tenets and methods, key findings, and prominent criticisms and controversies. 'Culture' is defined as socially transmitted information. Cultural evolution is the theory that this socially transmitted information evolves in the manner laid out by Darwin in The Origin of Species, i.e. it comprises a system of variation, differential fitness and inheritance. Cultural evolution is not, however, neo-Darwinian, in that many of the details of genetic evolution may not apply, such as particulate inheritance and random mutation. Following a brief history of this idea, I review theoretical and empirical studies of cultural microevolution, which entails both selection-like processes wherein some cultural variants are more likely to be acquired and transmitted than others, plus transformative processes that alter cultural information during transmission. I also review how phylogenetic methods have been used to reconstruct cultural macroevolution, including the evolution of languages, technology and social organisation. Finally, I discuss recent controversies and debates, including the extent to which culture is proximate or ultimate, the relative role of selective and transformative processes in cultural evolution, the basis of cumulative cultural evolution, the evolution of large-scale human cooperation, and whether social learning is learned or innate. I conclude by highlighting the value of using evolutionary methods to study culture for both the social and biological sciences.

show abstract

“…In emphasizing the "ultimate" nature of our explanation, we refer to the distinction between ultimate ("why") and proximate ("how") explanations (Scott-Phillips et al, 2011). Ultimate explanations of a trait involve explaining why this given trait (here, moral attention to procedures) rather than alternative traits (e.g., moral attention to outcomes only) exist in a population.…”

Section: Where To Look For 'Why'? Evidence For the Relevance Of Biolomentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More specifically, existing theoretical frameworks have been criticized for being too narrow in their scope and for providing proximate accounts that assume rather than explain why procedural fairness matters (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse 2008). In reference to the distinction between ultimate ("why") and proximate ("how") explanations (Scott-Phillips et al 2011), we here seek to provide an ultimate explanation of why human moral judgments about decisions are oriented towards the procedural aspects of the decision. To achieve this, we part with previous work on procedural fairness in social psychology in two ways: First, for reasons developed below, we utilize an evolutionary biological framework and dissect the fitness benefits of psychological systems for procedural fairness for humans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics

Bøggild

Petersen

2016

Evolutionary Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Politics is the process of determining resource allocations within and between groups. Group life has constituted a critical and enduring part of human evolutionary history and we should expect the human mind to contain psychological adaptations for dealing with political problems. Previous research has in particular focused on adaptations designed to produce moral evaluations of political outcomes: is the allocation of resources fair? People, however, are not only concerned about outcomes. They also readily produce moral evaluations of the political processes that shape these outcomes. People have a sense of procedural fairness. In this chapter, we identify the adaptive functions of the human psychology of procedural fairness. We argue that intuitions about procedural fairness evolved to deal with adaptive problems related to the delegation of leadership and, specifically, to identify and counter-act exploitative leaders. In the chapter, we first introduce the concept of procedural fairness, review extant social psychological theories and make the case for why an evolutionary approach is needed. Next, we dissect the evolved functions of procedural fairness and review extant research in favor of the evolutionary account. Finally, we discuss how environmental mismatches between ancestral and modern politics make procedural fairness considerations even more potent in modern politics, creating a powerful source of moral outrage.Keywords: procedural fairness, procedural justice, evolutionary psychology, politics, dominance, leadership, strategic moralization 3 Politics is the process of determining resource access (Petersen 2015). In a classical definition, the political scientist, David Easton (1953), thus defined politics as the process of determining the "authoritative allocation of values for a society." In more plain terms, another classical definition described politics as about "who gets what" (Lasswell 1950). These definitions highlight that politics is ultimately about outcomes: who gets a resource and who does not. Some researchers of politics have taken this to imply that outcomes are all people care about in politics. As Ulbig (2002, p. 793) notes, the traditional notion has been that "when people get what they want they do not care how they get it". Popkin (1991, p. 99), for example, holds that people "care about ends not means; they judge government by results and are . . . indifferent about the methods by which the results were obtained". is their strategy for achieving those interests? Research has documented that such a focus is, at least in part, demand driven: people crave information about the process leading to outcomes and the strategic aspects involved (Smith et al. 2007;Trussler & Soroka 2014).This appetite for information about what goes on behind the scenes of political outcomes extends even to the personal lives of politicians: who are they, whom are they personally affiliated with, and do they practice what they preach politically? This latter observation illustrates an importan...

show abstract

Evolutionary Theory and the Ultimate–Proximate Distinction in the Human Behavioral Sciences

Cited by 383 publications

References 72 publications

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins

Cultural Evolution: A Review of Theory, Findings and Controversies

The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About