Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byKira Maggard Modified over 9 years ago
1
Sex differences in nepotism Trust in a trust game is associated with sex, exposure to baby’s and facial similarity Katinka Quintelier, Ghent University Katinka.Quintelier@UGent.be www.themoralbrain.be June 5, 2008 HBES 2008, Kyoto
2
Overview 1. 1.Introduction & Predictions 2. 2.Materials and Methods 3. 3.Results 4. 4.Discussion & Conclusions
3
Overview 1. 1.Introduction & Predictions 2. 2.Materials and Methods 3. 3.Results 4. 4.Discussion & Conclusions
4
1 Introduction The fossil record of the genus Homo (Wood & Collard, 1999) versus earlier hominins suggests: Slower maturation, prolonged development of children Increase in brain size Obligate bipedalism Increase in body size Lake Turkana, Kenya Homo ergaster; Skull KNM-ER 3733 discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 (Kenya) Wood & Collard, 1999. The Human Genus. Science,284:65-71. Antón, 2003.Natural History of Homo erectus. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 46:126-170. Pictures: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
5
1 Introduction What also evolved since the emergence of the genus Homo: Shorter lactation period & interbirth interval (Aiello & Key, 2002) Very long dependency of children Raising several dependent children simultaneously Lake Turkana, Kenya Homo ergaster; Skull KNM-ER 3733 discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 (Kenya) This could not have evolved without a co-evolving change in social life, i.e. assistance by others than the mother in child care. (Hrdy, 2005) Aiello & Key, 2002. Energetic Consequences of Being a Homo erectus Female. American Journal of Human Biology, 14:551-565. Hrdy 2005. Evolutionary Context of Human Development. The Cooperative Breeding Model.
6
1. Introduction Who would assist a mother to decrease the burden of child care? C < rB (Hamilton, 1964) Father paternal care Kin cooperative breeding “Cooperative breeding is a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents (alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring”. Hrdy, 2005. Hamilton, 1964. The genetic evolution of social behavior. J Theoretical Biology 7: pp. 17-18 Geary, 2000. Evolution and Proximate Expression of Human Paternal Investment. Psychological Bulletin 126, 1:55-77. Hrdy, 2005.
7
Sear and Mace, 2008. Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior 29:1-18. E.g. Kramer, 2005. Children’s Help and the Pace of Reproduction: Cooperative Breeding in Humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 14:224-237. 1. Introduction Mother Maternal grandmothers Paternal grandmothers Older siblings Sear and Mace, 2008.
8
1. Introduction Women are expected to be more nepotistic than men. Reproductive succes can be increased by : Increasing survival of offspring (getting help from kin) Increasing inclusive fitness (helping kin) Increasing quantity of offspring Some data support this hypothesis. (LA) Women give more help to and receive more help from wealthy female kin with children. (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985) (Canadian) Sisters recalled more relatives and refered more to kinship status in characterizing themselves, than their brothers did. (Salmon & Daly, 1996) Neyer & Lang, 2003. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Kinship Orientation Across Adulthood. J PersSoc Psychol 84, 2:310-321. Salmon & Daly, 1996. On the importance of Kin Relations to Canadian Women and Men. Eth & Soc 17:289-297. Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985. Women’s Lives Viewed from an Evolutionary Perspective. II. Patterns of Helping. Eth &Soc 6:155-173.
9
1. Predictions If we elicit a context of cooperative breeding, women will be more cooperative, at least when they are possibly related. Female students will be more trusting towards another female, When they are first exposed to pictures of baby’s And when the other female looks subtly similar to them.
10
1. Predictions Is facial resemblance a possible kinship cue? Facial resemblance enhances trust (e.g. DeBruine, 2002). Facial resemblance enhances cooperation (Krupp et al., 2008). Facial resemblance of other-sex faces increases trust but decreases their attractiveness in the context of a short-term relationship (DeBruine, 2005). An implicit evaluation of relatedness. DeBruine, 2002. Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 269: 1307-1312 DeBruine, 2005b Trustworthy but not lustworthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proc. R. Soc. B. 272:919-922. Krupp, DeBruine & Barclay, 2008. A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Journal of Evolution and Human Behavior:49-55.
11
Overview 1. 1.Introduction & Predictions 2. 2.Materials and Methods 1. 1.Design 2. 2.Participants 3. 3.Stimuli 4. 4.Procedure 3. 3.Results 4. 4.Discussion & Conclusions
12
2.1. Design Subject’s sex 2 conditions Picture evaluation task 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance « Player 2 » was always female! 2 x 2 x 2, all between subjects variables The entire program ran in «Presentation 12.1.»
13
2.1. Design Subject’s sex 2 conditions Picture evaluation task 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance « Player 2 » was always female! 2 x 2 x 2, all between subjects variables The entire program ran in «Presentation 12.1 »
14
2.1. Design Subject’s sex 2 conditions Picture evaluation task 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance « Player 2 » was always female! 2 x 2 x 2, all between subjects variables The entire program ran in «Presentation 12.1 »
15
2.1. Participants 45 male, 47 female undergraduate students Mean age = 21.54; s.d. = 2.97 European
16
2.2. Stimuli Trust game Two conditions Condition 1: player 2 resembles participant Condition 2: player 2 does not resemble participant
17
Player 2 Base face Minear & Park, 2004. A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4):630-633. 2.2. Stimuli Facial Stimuli Database http://agingmind.utdallas.edu/
18
Player 2 Base face 2.2. Stimuli Image manipulation software: Psychomorph (Tiddeman et al., 2005) Transformation method cf. DeBruine, 2004. 50% Shape only transformation Player 2 Tiddeman, Stirrat & Perrett, 2005. Towards realism in facial transformation: results of a wavelet MRF method. Computer Graphics Forum, Eurographics conference issue, Vol 24, No 1-5. DeBruine, 2004. Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex face more than other-sex faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271:2085-2090. Minear & Park, 2004. Subject
19
DeBruine, 2004. Tiddeman, Stirrat & Perrett, 2005. Minear & Park, 2004. 50% 50% Shape only transformation Player 2 Base face Shape of subject’s face Shape of same-sex composite face 2.2. Stimuli Player 2 50%
20
Player 2 Base face DeBruine, 2004. Tiddeman, Stirratt & Perret, 2005. Minear & Park, 2004. 2.3. Stimuli 50% Shape of subject’s face Shape of same-sex composite face 50% Shape only transformation
21
2.3. Procedure Trust game subject Player 2
22
X 3! subject Player 2 subject Player 2 2.3. Procedure
23
Player 2 Subject 2.3. Procedure
24
Overview 1. 1.Introduction & Predictions 2. 2.Materials and Methods 3. 3.Results 4. 4.Discussion & Conclusions
25
3. Results
26
**
27
*
28
Overview 1. 1.Introduction & Predictions 2. 2.Materials and Methods 3. 3.Results 4. 4.Discussion & Conclusions 1. 1.Female Subjects 2. 2.Male Subjects
29
4. Discussion & Conclusions The data seem to support the prediction that extended child dependency shaped cooperative behaviour of related women. They are consistent with other data (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985). Proximate mechanisms? Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985.
30
4. Discussion & Conclusions Key & Aiello, 2000. A Prisoner’s Dilemma Model of the Evolution of Paternal Care. Folia Primatologia, 71:77-92. The data seem to be consistent with other data (Key & Aiello, 2000), suggesting that cooperative behavior of men towards women can evolve When women face a relatively high cost of reproduction. When there is a link between cooperation and reproduction, e.g. mating effort. Other explanations? Proximate mechanisms?
31
Thank you!
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.