Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T08:42:43.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Nature and Psychological Foundation of Social Universals

from Part II - Sociocultural Anthropology and Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Bernard Chapais
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

Absolute universals are behavior-related phenomena present in all societies. They comprise two broad classes: psychological universals (e.g., emotional and cognitive processes) and behavioral universals, which are categories containing a large number of cultural forms (e.g., techniques and social activities). Although a number of studies have focused on the nature of psychological and behavioral universals, very little is known about how the two classes relate to each other. In this chapter, I present a model of the processes involved in how psychological universals generate social universals, a large and highly diversified subset of behavioral universals. Social universals are classified into 10 categories, forming a multilevel hierarchical structure whose most elementary components are represented by individual social acts. The model posits that psychological adaptations (evolved psychological mechanisms) are fundamental mechanisms regulating social life and that therefore they must play a central role in the production of the most basic categories of social universals, including individual social acts. The model shows that even assuming that psychological adaptations aim at fulfilling rather broad functional objectives (e.g., attaining status, acquiring sexual partners), they nonetheless produce a substantial number of specific categories of individual social acts through interactions between three sets of factors: (1) the adaptation’s genetically specified subgoals (called systemic social motives); (2) the universal categories of socioecological contexts eliciting those motives; and (3) the universal cognitive mechanisms available for achieving them. This results in psychological adaptations deploying into a large array of universal social propensities. The latter in turn would bias creativity (innovation) and social learning and operate as templates for the production and adoption of cultural variants congruent with the propensities; that is, they would generate culturally polymorphic categories of social acts. Even though absolute universals provide strong evidence that human nature, through the intermediary of psychological adaptations, produces a large number of specific social patterns, they constitute only a tiny fraction of the cross-cultural behavioral regularities governed by human nature.

Keywords

culturepsychological adaptationsstatusuniversals
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 47 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., et al. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 635–652.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009a). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 295–298.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009b). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491–503.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Willer, R., Kilduff, G. J., & Brown, C. E. (2012). The origins of deference: When do people prefer lower status? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1077–1088.Google Scholar
Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 574–601.Google Scholar
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atran, S., & Medin, D. (2008). The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. (1992). Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., et al. (2013). The height leadership advantage of men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 17–27.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1987). On cultural and reproductive success: Kipsigis evidence. American Anthropologist, 89, 617–634.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., & Bergstrom, B. (2008). Evolutionary perspectives on religion. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. S. (1991). Human Universals. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Brown, D. S. (2001). Human universals and their implications. In Roughley, N., ed., Being Humans: Anthropological Universality and Particularity in Transdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 156–174.Google Scholar
Brown, D. S. (2004). Human universals, human nature and human culture. Daedalus, 133, 47–54.Google Scholar
Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366, 313–324.Google Scholar
Buss, D. (2003). The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2014). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, 5th ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P., & Picciuto, E. (2014). The origins of creativity. In Paul, E. S. & Kaufman, S. B., eds., The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–223.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239, 985–992.Google Scholar
Chapais, B. (2014). Complex kinship patterns as evolutionary constructions, and the origins of sociocultural universals. Current Anthropology, 55, 751–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapais, B. (2015). Competence, and the evolutionary origins of status and power in humans. Human Nature, 26, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapais, B. (2016a). The evolutionary origins of kinship structures. Structure and Dynamics, 9, 33–51.Google Scholar
Chapais, B. (2016b). Universal aspects of kinship. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., eds., Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Sciences. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Chapais, B. (2017). Psychological adaptations and the production of culturally polymorphic social universals. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11, 63–82.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 334–347.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103–125.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2015). Adaptations for reasoning about social exchange. In Buss, D., ed., The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 625–668.Google Scholar
Dean, L. G., Kendal, R. L., Schapiro, S. J., Thierry, B., & Laland, K. N. (2012). Identification of the social and cognitive processes underlying human cumulative culture. Science, 335, 1114–1118.Google Scholar
Fogarty, L., Creanza, N., & Feldman, M. W. (2015). Cultural evolutionary perspectives on creativity and human innovation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30, 736–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, R. (1980). The Red Lamp of Incest. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (1989). The cultural animal. In Fox, R., ed., The Search for Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar
Gabora, L., & Kaufmann, S. B. (2010). In Kaufman, J. C. & Sternberg, R. J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279–300.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1973). The impact of the concept of culture on the concept of man. In Geertz, C., ed., The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Goodenough, W. H. (1970). Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gurven, M., & von Rueden, C. (2006). Hunting, social status, and biological fitness. Social Biology, 53, 81–99.Google Scholar
Hage, P. (1997). Unthinkable categories and the fundamental laws of kinship. American Ethnologist, 24, 652–667.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165–196.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1991). A biologist looks at anthropology. Man, 26, 583–608.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1973). Man’s Place in Nature. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Irons, W. (1979). Cultural and biological success. In Chagnon, N. A. & Irons, W., eds., Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. North Sciutate, MA: Duxbury Press, pp. 257–272.Google Scholar
Jones, D. (2004). The universal psychology of kinship: Evidence from language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. (2010). Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 367–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, H., & Hill, K. (1985). Hunting ability and reproductive success among the Ache foragers: Preliminary results. Current Anthropology, 26, 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kappeler, P. M., & Silk, J. B., eds. (2010). Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J., eds. (2010). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P. (2005). Color categories are not arbitrary. Cross Cultural Research, 39, 72–78.Google Scholar
Kluckohn, C. (1953). Universal categories of culture. In Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, pp. 507–523.Google Scholar
Konner, M. (2010). Evolutionary foundations of cultural psychology. In Kitayama, S. & Cohen, D., eds., Handbook of Cultural Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 77–105.Google Scholar
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2006). Issues in the classification of kinship terminologies: Toward a new typology. Anthropos, 101, 203–219.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N., & Reader, S. M. (2003). Comparative perspective on human innovation. In O’Brien, M. J. & Shennan, S. J., eds., Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innovation: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 688–699.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1983). Le Regard Éloigné. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., Anderson, C., Simmons, Z. L., & Roney, J. R. (2016). The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 385–406.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1944). A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Mitani, J. C. (2009). Male chimpanzees form enduring and equitable social bonds. Animal Behavior, 77, 633–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murdock, G. P. (1945). The common denominators of culture. In Linton, R., ed., The Science of Man in the World Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 123–142.Google Scholar
Murray, G. R., & Schmitz, J. D. (2011). Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 1215–1235.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2009). Beyond nature versus culture: Cultural variation as an evolved characteristic. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15, 223–240.Google Scholar
Neuberg, S. L., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M. (2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In Dunbar, R. & Barrett, L., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 761–796.Google Scholar
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763–784.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Re, D. E., DeBruine, L. B., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2013). Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 89–103.Google Scholar
Sabo, D., Kupers, T. A., & London, W., eds. (2001). Prisons Masculinities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, J. B. (2010). Female chacma baboons form strong, equitable, and enduring social bonds. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60, 197–204Google Scholar
Smith, E. A. (2004). Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success? Human Nature, 15, 343–364.Google Scholar
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1999). Social Psychology across Cultures, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations. Man, 20, 73–89.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tennie, C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Ratcheting up the ratchet: On the evolution of cumulative culture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364, 2404–2415.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J., eds., The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–136.Google Scholar
Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., & Cheng, J. T. (2010). A naturalist’s view of pride. Emotion Review, 2, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Rueden, C. (2014). The roots and fruits of social status in small-scale human societies. In Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Anderson, C., eds., The Psychology of Social Status. Berlin: Springer, pp. 179–200.Google Scholar
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 278, 2223–2232.Google Scholar
Watts, D. P. (2010). Dominance, power, and politics in non-human and human primates. In Kappeler, P. M. & Silk, J. B., eds., Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer, pp. 109–138.Google Scholar
Weisfeld, G. E., & Dillon, L. M. (2012). Applying the dominance hierarchy model to pride and shame, and related behaviors. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 15–41.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×