Evolution and Human Behavior最新文献

Commentary on: the ecological approach to culture by Nicolas Baumard and Jean-Baptiste André 评论：尼古拉斯·鲍玛和让-巴蒂斯特·安德烈的文化生态学方法

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-05 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106718

Christine A. Caldwell

引用次数: 0

Ecological frameworks should not deny the importance of transmission: comment on Baumard and André “the ecological approach to culture” 生态框架不应否认传播的重要性——评鲍玛和安德烈的“文化的生态取向”

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-04 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106719

Claudio Tennie

引用次数: 0

Culture is not ecology 文化不是生态

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106717

Kaleda K. Denton , Elisa Heinrich-Mora , Noah Egan , Marcus W. Feldman

引用次数: 0

On the importance of conceptual clarity and constraints in an ecological approach to culture 论文化生态学方法中概念清晰度和约束的重要性

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106723

Michael E.W. Varnum

引用次数: 0

What do we want from culture? 我们想从文化中得到什么？

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106722

H. Clark Barrett

引用次数: 0

Commentary on Baumard and André's the ecological approach to culture 鲍玛和安德烈的文化生态学研究述评

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-07-03 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106720

Peter J. Richerson

引用次数: 0

Cultural evolution and the beneficiary question 文化演变与受益者问题

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-06-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106709

Jonathan Egeland

引用次数: 0

Oral contraceptives and women's preferences for facial masculinity and symmetry: Evidence from a double-blind randomized controlled trial 口服避孕药和女性对面部阳刚和对称的偏好：来自双盲随机对照试验的证据

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-06-19 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106713

Eva Ranehill , Niklas Zethraeus , Coren L. Apicella , Liselott Blomberg , Bo von Schoultz , Angelica Lindén Hirschberg , Magnus Johannesson , Anna Dreber

{"title":"Oral contraceptives and women's preferences for facial masculinity and symmetry: Evidence from a double-blind randomized controlled trial","authors":"Eva Ranehill , Niklas Zethraeus , Coren L. Apicella , Liselott Blomberg , Bo von Schoultz , Angelica Lindén Hirschberg , Magnus Johannesson , Anna Dreber","doi":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106713","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106713","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Several studies have reported that heterosexual women's preferences for male faces vary with hormonal fluctuations over the menstrual cycle and that women tend to prefer more masculine faces during ovulation or when not using hormonal contraceptives. While this has been tested using observational data, we provide the first double-blind randomized controlled study testing if oral contraceptives reduce preferences for facial masculinity and symmetry. Three hundred and forty women were randomized to either oral contraceptives or placebo and their facial preferences were measured at baseline and after 3 months. All analyses follow a pre-registered pre-analysis plan. No statistically significant effect of oral contraceptives on preferences for facial masculinity or facial symmetry was found. In pre-registered exploratory analyses, we further find no statistically significant associations between menstrual cycle phase or hormone levels and facial preferences. These results provide evidence against a causal effect of oral contraceptives on women's preferences for masculine and symmetric faces, although our results should be interpreted cautiously as we only find strong evidence against effect sizes larger than about 0.4 Cohen's d units.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55159,"journal":{"name":"Evolution and Human Behavior","volume":"46 5","pages":"Article 106713"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144314561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

People decide whether to share social information–and whether to share it accurately–on the basis of self-interest 人们决定是否分享社会信息——以及是否准确地分享——是基于自身利益

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-06-18 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106711

Cristina M. Gomes , Megan R. Mulhinch , Michael E. McCullough

{"title":"People decide whether to share social information–and whether to share it accurately–on the basis of self-interest","authors":"Cristina M. Gomes , Megan R. Mulhinch , Michael E. McCullough","doi":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106711","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106711","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Why do people spend so much time gossiping? Here, we tested two distinct hypotheses about how people might use reputational information to achieve social goals. <em>Indirect Reciprocity</em> <em>theory</em> entails the hypothesis that people share information about themselves and others accurately in order to reward cooperators and punish defectors. In contrast, <em>Reputation-Based Partner Choice</em> theory proposes that people share, withhold, and distort information about themselves and others in order to secure high-quality cooperation partners. We found that subjects were more likely to share information about others' (and their own) previous generosity if they themselves had been generous rather than greedy. Previously generous people were most likely to gossip—and previously greedy people were least likely —under conditions in which sharing and withholding gossip, respectively, were in their material interest. Likewise, previously generous people were most likely to share honest gossip—and previously greedy people were most likely to share dishonest gossip—when it was in their material interest. Finally, previously generous people were less likely than previously greedy people to share dishonest gossip that yielded a competitive advantage. Although these results fit more comfortably with Reputation-based Partner Choice theory than with Indirect Reciprocity theory as commonly understood, nearly 30 % of subjects shared information even when it did not pay to do so. This finding suggests that people's decisions about sharing reputational information are not driven exclusively by short-term material considerations, although we did not explore the self-interested desire to avoid the social cost of being caught lying.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55159,"journal":{"name":"Evolution and Human Behavior","volume":"46 5","pages":"Article 106711"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144314566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Coalitional support regulates resource divisions in men 联合支持调节男性的资源分配

IF 3 1区心理学

Evolution and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2025-06-16 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106715

Elsa Ermer , Gary Charness , John Tooby , Leda Cosmides

{"title":"Coalitional support regulates resource divisions in men","authors":"Elsa Ermer , Gary Charness , John Tooby , Leda Cosmides","doi":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106715","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106715","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The logic of animal conflict predicts that organisms should assess cues of formidability to mitigate the costs of escalated contests. Accordingly, individual fighting ability has been shown to regulate the outcome of contests: All else equal, more formidable individuals claim a larger share of disputed resources, and less formidable individuals defer to their claims. The human ability to cooperate in groups complicates these interactions because a coalition of individuals can take resources from an individual that none of them could dominate when acting alone. We propose that the prevalence of male coalitional aggression in humans selected for psychological mechanisms that track how much coalitional support is immediately available to men when they are contesting a resource and use this information to regulate decisions about how to divide it. Specifically, men with coalitional allies present should be motivated to press their self-interest more than men who are acting alone—even if the solitary man has allies elsewhere. Experiments using economic games in a university lab setting were employed to test this coalitional support hypothesis. Across six experiments employing three different economic games (total <em>n</em> = 496), coalitional support consistently regulated men's—but not women's—choices. These results suggest that coalitional support is an important factor regulating resource division in men. The fact that women pressed their self-interest, but did so whether allies were present versus absent, suggests that women's coalitional psychology was designed by different selection pressures than men's.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55159,"journal":{"name":"Evolution and Human Behavior","volume":"46 5","pages":"Article 106715"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144298817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0