Symposium abstract: Modern
advances lead to rapid environmental changes that outpace the ability of humans
to adapt. The four talks in this symposium will explore evolutionarily novel
features of the environment (e.g., medical advances, large societies) that have
implications for a wide range of behaviors. The first speaker will present a
theoretical perspective suggesting that many social issues are due in part to
mismatches between the modern and evolutionary environments. The remaining
talks will discuss recent empirical work derived from this perspective in three
domains. Specifically, the second speaker will present longitudinal data
demonstrating that women’s hormonal contraceptive use impacts their
relationship outcomes. The third speaker will present evidence suggesting that
evolved heuristics can explain people’s selection of narcissistic and
authoritarian leaders as well as the underrepresentation of women leaders. The
final speaker will present five studies suggesting that people are maladapted
to evaluate goal progress by showing that modern demands lead people to
misperceive goal pursuit. Together, these talks introduce a new framework for
understanding important human social phenomena.
Talk 1 abstract: It’s a mismatched world
Living standards in modern societies are at
historically unprecedented high levels and people are living longer, safer, and
freer lives than ever. Ironically, however, modern people experience lower
psychological well-being than ancestral humans such that they report increased
chronic stress, anxiety, and depression; are more dissatisfied in their
romantic relationships; are more prone to divorce; and, are more dissatisfied
in the workplace. Here, an evolutionary mismatch perspective is introduced as a
framework through which to view and examine modern problems. Human psychology consists
of mechanisms that evolved to process environmental inputs, turning them into
behavioral outputs that, on average, increase survival or reproductive
prospects. Modern contexts, however, differ vastly from the environment that
existed as human psychological mechanisms evolved, thereby leading many
mechanisms to produce maladaptive output. In this talk, the evolutionary
mismatch process is described, areas of mismatch are highlighted, and
implications for psychological science and policy are considered.
Modern-day environments differ drastically from those in which humans evolved, and such differences likely have important implications for human mating psychology. One particularly notable difference is the modern development of hormonal contraceptives (HCs). HCs alter the hormones of the many women who use them, including hormones associated with women’s partner preferences (particularly preferences for genetic fitness). Accordingly, the HC congruency hypothesis posits that changing HC use after relationship formation (relative to use at relationship formation) changes women’s relationship evaluations. We tested this possibility in two independent, longitudinal studies of 203 newlywed couples. Results demonstrated that when women’s HC use was incongruent (versus congruent) with their use at relationship formation, they reported lower sexual and marital satisfaction—though, such women were buffered against lower marital satisfaction when their partners were particularly physically attractive (a marker of genetic fitness). These findings highlight the importance of considering mismatches between the modern and ancestral environments for better understanding close relationships.
Talk 3 abstract: The appeal of a strong leader: Evidence for mismatch?
We live in large, complex organizations with strong, powerful leaders. Yet our minds evolved in small-scale societies with distributed leadership. Discrepancies between modern versus small-scale societies may account for many leadership challenges today (e.g., preference for authoritarian and narcissistic political leaders, underrepresentation of women leaders). Current leadership theories cannot account for these challenges because they assume that leadership selection is a rational decision-making process. We argue instead that people select leaders using simple heuristics that are mismatched to the modern world. Four studies on political elections show that people (a) attend more to physical cues of leaders (e.g., height, appearance) than competence cues; (b) attribute organizational successes and failures disproportionally to the people in charge, despite contrary evidence; and (c) base their leadership preferences on their own physiological (e.g., strength, health) and developmental needs (e.g., childhood environment). The result is a comprehensive understanding of the evolved heuristics that shape leadership preferences and how they may be mismatched in modern societies.
Talk 4 abstract: Evolutionary mismatches in self-regulation: Having long-term goals but using short-term standards
Society has changed at a faster pace than human biology, leading to mismatches between the ancestral and modern context of goal pursuits. We discuss one implication of modern goal pursuit—that long-term goal pursuits often require short-term standards. Across 5 studies, we show that the presence of these standards draws attention, leading to nonlinear biases in how people evaluate goal progress. In Studies 1-3, we examine nonlinear perceptions of goal progress across multiple goals involving both inhibition and initiation behaviors. In Study 4, we investigated whether nonlinear perceptions emerge from only externally imposed standards or whether they also exist across self-set standards. Finally, in Study 5, we tested the degree to which these processes may reflect a self-serving bias versus a binary bias and examined temporal reframing. Together, these studies suggest that people perceive a linear phenomenon—long-term goal progress—as non-linear. We discuss these findings from an evolutionary perspective, highlighting the incongruence between modern and ancestral societies with regard to goal pursuit demands.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder