Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorBrown, Gillian Ruth
dc.contributor.authorRicherson, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-05T08:31:01Z
dc.date.available2014-09-05T08:31:01Z
dc.date.issued2014-07
dc.identifier.citationBrown , G R & Richerson , P 2014 , ' Applying evolutionary theory to human behaviour: past differences and current debates ' , Journal of Bioeconomics , vol. 16 , no. 2 , pp. 105-128 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9166-4en
dc.identifier.issn1387-6996
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 65306243
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: e42155e5-122d-419b-a2a9-76f2617be936
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84901981723
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-0675-0780/work/60195757
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/5350
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this paper is to provide non-specialist readers with an introduction to some current controversies surrounding the application of evolutionary theory to human behaviour at the intersection of biology, psychology and anthropology. We review the three major contemporary sub-fields; namely Human Behavioural Ecology, Evolutionary Psychology and Cultural Evolution, and we compare their views on maladaptive behaviour, the proximal mechanisms of cultural transmission, and the relationship between human cognition and culture. For example, we show that the sub-fields vary in the amount of maladaptive behaviour that is predicted to occur in modern environments; Human Behavioural Ecologists start with the expectation that behaviour will be optimal, while Evolutionary Psychologists emphasize cases of ‘mis-match’ between modern environments and domain-specific, evolved psychological mechanisms. Cultural Evolutionists argue that social learning processes are effective at providing solutions to novel problems and describe how relatively weak, general-purpose learning mechanisms, alongside accurate cultural transmission, can lead to the cumulative evolution of adaptive cultural complexity but also sometimes to maladaptative behaviour. We then describe how the sub-fields view cooperative behaviour between non-kin, as an example of where the differences between the sub-fields are relevant to the economics community, and we discuss the hypothesis that a history of inter-group competition can explain the evolution of non-kin cooperation. We conclude that a complete understanding of human behaviour requires insights from all three fields and that many scholars no longer view them as distinct.
dc.format.extent105
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Bioeconomicsen
dc.rights© 2013. Springer Science+Business Media New York. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in the Journal of Bioeconomics on 4 September 2013. The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9166-4en
dc.subjectBF Psychologyen
dc.subject.lccBFen
dc.titleApplying evolutionary theory to human behaviour: past differences and current debatesen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPostprinten
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.School of Psychology and Neuroscienceen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Institute of Behavioural and Neural Sciencesen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews.Centre for Social Learning & Cognitive Evolutionen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10818-013-9166-4
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record