1 / 31

Sex differences in nepotism

Sex differences in nepotism. Trust in a trust game is associated with sex , exposure to baby’s and facial similarity. June 5, 2008. HBES 2008, Kyoto. Katinka Quintelier, Ghent University Katinka.Quintelier@UGent.be www.themoralbrain.be. Overview. Introduction & Predictions

havyn
Télécharger la présentation

Sex differences in nepotism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sexdifferences in nepotism Trust in a trust game is associatedwithsex, exposure to baby’s and facialsimilarity June 5, 2008 HBES 2008, Kyoto Katinka Quintelier, Ghent University Katinka.Quintelier@UGent.be www.themoralbrain.be

  2. Overview • Introduction & Predictions • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion & Conclusions

  3. Overview • Introduction & Predictions • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion & Conclusions

  4. The fossil record of the genus Homo (Wood & Collard, 1999) versus earlier hominins suggests: Slower maturation, prolonged development of children Increase in brain size Obligatebipedalism Increase in body size 1 Introduction 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. What also evolved since the emergence of the genus Homo: Shorter lactation period & interbirthinterval (Aiello & Key, 2002) Very long dependency of children Raisingseveraldependentchildrensimultaneously 1 Introduction 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 • Whowouldassist a mother to decrease the burden of child care? • C < rB (Hamilton, 1964) • Father  paternal care • Kin  cooperativebreeding • “Cooperativebreeding is a breeding system in whichgroupmembers, otherthan the geneticparents (alloparents), help oneorbothparentsreartheiroffspring”. • 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. 1. Introduction • Mother • Maternal grandmothers • Paternal grandmothers • Older siblings Sear and Mace, 2008. • 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.

  8. 1. Introduction • Women are expected to be more nepotisticthan men. Reproductive succescanbeincreased by : • Increasingsurvival of offspring (getting help fromkin) • Increasing inclusive fitness (helpingkin) • Increasingquantity of offspring • Some data support thishypothesis. • (LA) Womengive more help to and receive more help fromwealthyfemalekinwithchildren. (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985) • (Canadian) Sistersrecalled more relatives and refered more to kinshipstatus in characterizingthemselves, thantheirbrothersdid. (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 Introduction & Predictions Materials and Methods • Design • Participants • Stimuli • Procedure Results Discussion & Conclusions

  12. 2.1. Design Subject’ssex • 2 conditions Picture evaluationtask • 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game • 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance • « Player 2 » wasalwaysfemale! 2 x 2 x 2, all betweensubjects variables The entire program ranin «Presentation 12.1.»

  13. 2.1. Design Subject’ssex • 2 conditions Picture evaluationtask • 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game • 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance • « Player 2 » wasalwaysfemale! 2 x 2 x 2, all betweensubjects variables The entire program ran in «Presentation 12.1 »

  14. 2.1. Design Subject’ssex • 2 conditions Picture evaluationtask • 2 conditions: landscape or baby Trust game • 2 conditions: resemblance or no resemblance • « Player 2 » wasalwaysfemale! 2 x 2 x 2, all betweensubjects 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. 2.2. Stimuli Facial Stimuli Database http://agingmind.utdallas.edu/ Player 2 Base face • Minear & Park, 2004. A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4):630-633.

  18. 2.2. Stimuli 50% Shape only transformation Player 2 Base face Player 2 Subject • Image manipulation software: Psychomorph (Tiddeman et al., 2005) • Transformation method cf. DeBruine, 2004. • 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.

  19. 2.2. Stimuli 50% Shape only transformation Player 2 Base face Player 2   50% 50% Shape of same-sex composite face Shape of subject’s face • DeBruine, 2004. • Tiddeman, Stirrat & Perrett, 2005. • Minear & Park, 2004.

  20. 2.3. Stimuli 50% Shape only transformation Player 2 Base face  50% Shape of same-sex composite face Shape of subject’s face • DeBruine, 2004. • Tiddeman , Stirratt & Perret, 2005. • Minear & Park, 2004.

  21. 2.3. Procedure • Trust game Player 2 subject

  22. 2.3. Procedure X 3! Player 2 subject Player 2 subject

  23. 2.3. Procedure Player 2 Subject Player 2 Subject

  24. Overview • Introduction & Predictions • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion & Conclusions

  25. 3. Results

  26. **

  27. *

  28. Overview • Introduction & Predictions • Materials and Methods • Results • Discussion & Conclusions • Female Subjects • Male Subjects

  29. 4. Discussion & Conclusions • The data seem to support the predictionthatextendedchilddependencyshapedcooperativebehaviour of relatedwomen. • They are consistent withother data (Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985). • Proximatemechanisms? • Essock-Vitale & McGuire, 1985.

  30. 4. Discussion & Conclusions • 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? • Key & Aiello, 2000. A Prisoner’s Dilemma Model of the Evolution of Paternal Care. Folia Primatologia, 71:77-92.

  31. Thankyou!

More Related