Popular in Department
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by ruiminx on Tuesday October 4, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to psy202 at University of Oregon taught by in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 2 views.
Reviews for psy202
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/04/16
Summary 4 More polygyny = greater body size difference. Parental Investment Theory: • For humans, who require extensive post-natal parenting, the issue of parental investment is particularly acute • Compared to our primate cousins, human males invest considerably more in parenting (though there are individual differences) • Hence: • Women have dual motivations in mating: recruiting good genes and recruiting parental investment • An evolutionary ‘battle of the sexes’ has ensued over male investment with each sex trying to maximize their own genetic inclusive ﬁtness Female Mating Strategies: Concealed Ovulation • In our primate ancestors, the fertile period of the female cycle was advertised (‘in heat’) • In humans, such advertising has been concealed from both men and women. • Why? • One theory: Keeps men around (for protection, parenting, etc.) to ensure paternity • Another theory: Prevents women from practicing ‘timing-based’ birth control • Byproduct of bipedalism? Female Mate Preferences: Women’s Dual-Motivations: Cads & Dads • Women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle • Prefer feminine, ‘trustworthy’ male faces when NOT ovulating • Prefer masculine, ‘dominant’ male faces when at most fertile times Sex Diffs in Mate Prefs: We’re more alike than different So, mate preference for homosexuals, especially gay men, is primarily driven by the subject. Men want younger partners, whether they be male or female. Argues for modularity in sex preferences. Women: is worth reproductive investment. Dual Evolutionary Motivations. Parental investment and good genes. Men is worth mating investment. More Simple Evolutionary Motivation. Fertility includes beauty and youth. What determines female attractiveness? Compared to women’s, men’s mate preferences are disproportionately driven by fertility cues: Youth & Beauty. Cues of neotony Why should a lower WHR be attractive? Within-individual lifespan differences: - Lower WHR predicts youth - Lower WHR predicts not being pregnant Between-individual differences: - Lower WHR predicts less disease risk - Lower WHR predicts cognitive ability in children - Lower WHR predicts higher fecundity (more likely to conceive, as measured by hormone levels in saliva) - But only for women with big breasts Differences in Sexual Willingness: Error Management Theory: false positive and false negative. Women are more skeptical than third-party men about a variety of male courtship tactics (e.g. buying ﬂowers, cooking dinner, saying I love you) Paternal Uncertainty: • Unlike women, men have never been sure that the children they are raising are their genetical offspring: Paternal Uncertainty • This has been an evolutionary challenge for males throughout the animal kingdom • Those males who developed adaptations to minimize this problem, left more offspring • As a result, extreme sexual jealousy, often aggressive mate guarding, and infanticide have become adaptive strategies for males The Battle of the Sexes: An arms race of courtship tactics • Divergent interests spawned a series of adaptations and counter-adaptations for deceiving the opposite sex • Male inﬁdelity ➠ Concealed ovulation • Female cuckoldry ➠ Aggressive mate guarding • Female reticence ➠ ➠ Fake commitment signal 4 things to keep in mind: 1. We are more alike than we are different: • Do men just care about looks and youth? Do women just care about genes and resources? • No. These are the most gendered items, NOT the most important. 2. Evolution & Social Constructs: Evolved psychological tendencies are one input in producing behavior; there are others. Both culture and evolved tendencies matter. Evolutionary drives and cultural forces determines attitudes. But remember: those socio-cultural factors didn’t come from nowhere. They too were shaped by evolutionary preferences. Many of the evolved differences have been exaggerated by socio-cultural factors. 3. The Naturalistic Fallacy: • None of this is good or bad, it just is 4. To Ask: Why? Emotions: An emotion is a rapid and automatic cascade of subjective experience, physiological responses and cognitive appraisals. Three modules of emotions: 1. The common sense account: Perception of StimulusSubjective ExperienceRun Away! 2. The James-Lange Theory: Perception of StimulusEmotion-Speciﬁc Physiological Response Subjective Experience 3. The Schacter-Singer Theory: • Schacter & Singer theorized that feelings (e.g. euphoric, angry, etc.) are interpretations of bodily sensations (e.g. labeled arousal): Perception of Stimulus includes general arousal and cognitive label determines subjective experience. Different emotions are produced by different, interacting pathways in the brain Emotion expression: Paul Ekman: • Found that all over the world, people recognized and displayed the same set of core emotion expressions • One of the strongest pieces of early support for a universal ‘human nature’ • Adaptation: First evolved as physiological responses to stimuli in the environment • Exaptation: Later came to serve a new function of social communication EMOTIONS ARE GENERAL-PURPOSE HEURISTICS (general ‘rule of thumb’). NOT METHODICAL ALGORITHMS (full step by step) Emotions are not irrational passions, but necessary and highly functional components of our decision making system
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'