Transcript LEARNING THEORY - Psychology

PERSONALITY PSY234
Lecture 7:
Evolutionary Psychology
Dr Simon Boag
Email: [email protected]
Readings
•
Carver, C. S. & Scheier, M. F. (2004).
Perspectives on Personality. (pp. 138-146)
Additional (non-assessable)
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1.
Attachment (2nd ed.). NY: Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2.
Separation: Anxiety and Anger. NY: Basic Books.
•
Buss, ,D. M. (1995). Psychological sex
differences. American Psychologist, 50, 164-168.
Lecture Outline
I. Theories of evolution
•
Ethology & natural selection
II. Evolutionary Psychology
•
Sex differences
III. Attachment theory
•
Attachment styles
•
Adult attachment
Learning Outcomes
After this lecture you should be able to:
•
•
•
Describe the major theories of evolution
and their influence on theories of
personality
Describe & evaluate Buss’s account of
psychological sex differences
Describe & evaluate Bolwby’s theory of
attachment & attachment styles
I. Theories of Evolution
Enormous influence on psychology
• eg. Behaviourism, psychoanalysis
• Places humans within the animal
kingdon
Ethology:
•
Scientific study of the evolutionary basis
of behaviours that are:
•
•
•
Universal (species-wide)
Instinctive (genetically programmed)
Adaptive (survival value)
Theories of Evolution
•
Lamarkian: characteristics acquired over
an individual’s lifetime are passed on to
offspring
Theories of Evolution
•
Darwinian: Natural selection
•
Individuals within populations vary
Environmental pressures
Those with characteristics for survival
do, and pass their characteristics down
to offspring
‘survival of the fittest’ (Spencer)
•
•
•
Theories of Evolution
Sexual selection: evolution of
characteristics linked to mating success
II. Evolutionary Psychology
•
•
•
•
Recent development in psychology
Domain-specificity: adaptations are
shaped by specific environments
Functionality: the mind evolved to serve
various functions
Sexes will differ in domains where
women and men have faced different
sorts of adaptive problems (Buss, 2004)
Biology & Evolution
•
•
•
•
•
Mammals:
Females tend to typically invest more
heavily in offspring than do males
Females tend to be more selective in
mate choice
Males & intrasexual competition
(gaining & preventing access to
females)
However: many exceptions to the rule
Male & Female Mating Strategies
•
•
•
•
Males and females have evolved
differing mating strategies due to
different problems of environmental
adaptation (Buss, 1993)
Strategies: evolved solutions to
adaptive problems
Psychological mechanisms (preferences)
that solve adaptive problems
Unconscious motives
Female Mating Strategies
(Buss, 1993)
•
•
•
•
Females must deal with gestation,
childbirth, lactation
Females attempt to secure a mate to
help maintain her offspring & offer
protection
Prefer long-term (LT) mating to shortterm (ST) mating
Gain access to resources & parental
investment
Male Mating Strategies
(Buss, 1993)
•
•
•
•
Males desire to spread their genes as
far and wide as possible
Males attempt to secure as many sexual
partners as possible
Males have greater preference than
females for short-term mating
Long-term mating as an attempt of
ensuring paternity (‘paternity
hypothesis’)
Evidence (Clark & Hatfield, 1989)
•
•
•
•
•
An ‘attractive’ male or female
confederate approaches strangers of
the the opposite sex at uni & asks:
“I have been noticing you around
campus. I find you very attractive. Will
you:
A) Go out with me tonight?
B) Come over to my place tonight?
C) Go to bed with me tonight?”
‘YES’ Responses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Females:
A) Go out with me?
50%
B) To my place?
6%
C) Go to bed?
0%
Males:
A) Go out with me?
50%
B) To my place?
69%
C) Go to bed?
75%
Findings have been replicated
Evidence (Buss, 1993)
•
•
•
•
•
•
A) Over lifetime (self-report):
Males desire 18+ sex partners
Female desire 4-5 sex partners
B) Males more willing to engage in sex
after short amount of time
C) Males have lower ‘standards’ than
Females in ST mating choices
Females express greater care in choice
of mate (both ST & LT)
Evidence (Buss, 1993)
•
•
•
•
D) Males prefer ‘looks’ in ST & LT
Females prefer status & resource in LT
E) Males: sexual jealousy & insuring
paternity
Males more distressed by imagining
partner engage in other sexual relations
Females more distressed by imagining
partner engage in other emotional
relationships
Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enormous individual variation
Do people have sex in order to pass on
their genes? (teleological explanation)
Fails to appreciate cultural/social factors
eg. Silverstein (1996): Feminist critique
Sexual division of labour limited
women’s direct access to economic
resources
Hence women greater preference for
status & resources
III. Attachment theory
“A relatively durable, affective relationship
between a child & one or more specific
persons with whom the child regularly
interacts” (Van Ijzendoorn, 1988)
Bowlby:
Attachment & survival
• Tendency of child to remain close to
adults offers the child protection
Cf. Imprinting
Imprinting
Attachment Behaviours
•
Selective attachment & stranger wariness
begins between 7-11 months
Bowlby
• WHO study during 1940s
• These behaviours appear pre-wired
(occurring prior to learning)
• Monotropic (single person; generally
mother)
• ‘Maternal deprivation’
Attachment Behaviours
(1) Proximity seeking
• Clinging, hugging
• Watching caregiver
• Staying close, following
• Protest at separation (separation
anxiety)
(2) Use of attachment figure as
secure base for exploration
Attachment Classifications
(Ainsworth et al, 1978)
‘Strange situation’
(1) infant/caregiver in room
(2) Stranger enters (approaches infant,
caregiver leaves)
(3) Caregiver returns
(4) Stranger leaves
(5) Caregiver leaves, stranger returns
(6) Caregiver returns, stranger leaves
Attachment Classifications
Secure & insecure attachment styles
(1) Secure attachment style
(55-65%)
• Can use caregiver as a secure base for
exploration
• Distress on separation
• Seeks proximity on reunion
• Settles quickly on reunion
Insecure attachment styles
(2) Avoidant attachment style
(20-25%)
• Explores freely before separation
• May not be distressed on separation
• Affiliates with stranger, even when
caregiver absent
• On reunion, tends to ignore caregiver
Insecure attachment styles
(3) Ambivalent attachment style
(10-15%)
• Unable to use caregiver as base for
exploration
• Wary of novel situations, people
• Intense distress on separation
• Ambivalent on reunion (seek/avoid)
• Not easily settled on reunion
(4) Disorganised/Disoriented
Parenting styles
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ainsworth et al:
Secure: Sensitivity to infant’s needs
Insecure: Insensitivity to infant’s needs
Avoidant: impatient & unresponsive to
signals
Resistant: inconsistent (hot/cold)
misreading signals
Abused children: 80% disorganised
Empirical findings
•
•
‘Strange situation’ classification a good
predictor of other facets of child’s
development
Secure attachment predicts
interpersonal confidence, eagerness to
learn at school, greater self-esteem,
greater capacity for intimacy &
closeness with other people (Booth et
al, 1991; Grossman & Grossman, 1991;
Wartner et al, 1994)
Adult Attachment
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987)
Adult personality/relationship styles
based on early attachments
Internal working models:
• Expectancies linking early attachment
experiences with later feelings &
behaviour
• Pervasive influence of early attachments
on later relationships
• eg. fear of abandonment
• 0.39 correlation (Fraley, 2002, 2003)
•
Adult Attachment Styles
A) Secure: (56%)
• Comfortable with others
• Develops intimacy
• High satisfaction/low anxiety
B) Avoidant: (25%)
• Difficulty trusting others
• Avoids intimacy
C) Anxious/ambivalent: (19%)
• Anxious/insecure but craves intimacy
• High anxiety/low satisfaction
Adult Attachments (cont.)
Mickelson et al., (1997):
• Secure attach. report less mental health
problems compared to insecure
eg. less depression, phobias, substance
abuse etc
Scher (2000):
• Childhood insecure attach, associated
with all adult psychopathology
Adult Attachments (cont.)
Dieperinsky et al (2001):
• Study of 107 former POWs
• Secure attach. lower PTSD than
insecure
Attach. style stronger predictor of PTSD
than trauma severity
O’Shea-Lauber (2001):
• Short & long term health consequences
related to insecure attach.
• Avoidant: routine inhibition of emotion
• Anx/Ambivalent: high anxiety
•
Evaluation
•
•
•
•
•
Dynamics b/w caregiving & attachment
not fully understood (correlation)
Multiple attachments questions whether
there are ‘types’
Bolwby’s focus is too much on the
mother; ignores father (Rutter, 1984)
Adult attachment: Over-reliance on selfreport measures
All relationships influence expectancies,
not just early attachment (Levitt, 1991)
Summary
•
•
•
Evolutionary theory has had an enormous
influence on psychology
Buss argues that mating strategies have
evolved as solutions to specific adaptive
problems faced by males and females
Attachment styles appear to persist across
the life-span, affecting relationships &
other areas of life