Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T23:09:45.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking innovative designs to further test parasite-stress theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

Ayse K. Uskul
Ayse K. Uskul
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park, Colchester CO4 3SQ, United Kingdom. auskul@essex.ac.ukhttp://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/department/people/uskul.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fincher & Thornhill's (F&T's) parasite-stress theory of sociality is supported largely by correlational evidence; its persuasiveness would increase significantly via lab and natural experiments and demonstrations of its mediating role. How the theory is linked to other approaches to group differences in psychological differences and to production and dissemination of cultural ideas and practices, need further clarification. So does the theory's view on the possible reduction of negative group interactions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 93 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry, J. W. (1966) Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology 1:207–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, J. W., van de Koppel, J. M. H., Sénéchal, C., Annis, R. C., Bahuchet, S., Cavalli Sforza, L. L. & Witkin, H. A. (1986) On the edge of the forest: Cultural adaptation and cognitive development in Central Africa. Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (1998) Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. E. (2000) Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review 65:19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitayama, S., Conway, L. G. III, Pietromonaco, P. R., Park, H. & Plaut, V. C. (2010) Ethos of independence across regions in the United States: The production-adoption model of cultural change. American Psychologist 65:559–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B. & Karasawa, M. (2006) Cultural affordances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disengaging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:890–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M. & Uskul, A. K. (2009) A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97:236–55.Google Scholar
Mortensen, C. R., Becker, D. V., Ackerman, J. M., Neuberg, S. L. & Kenrick, D. T. (2010) Infection breeds reticence: the effects of disease salience on self-perceptions of personality and behavioral avoidance tendencies. Psychological Science 21:440–47.Google Scholar
Oishi, S. (2010) The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5:5–21.Google Scholar
Richerson, P. J. & Boyd, R. (2005) Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schaller, M. C., Miller, G. E., Gervais, W. M., Yager, S. & Chen, E. (2010) Mere visual perception of other people's disease symptoms facilitates a more aggressive immune response. Psychological Science 21:649–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaller, M. C. & Crandall, C. S. (2004) The psychological foundations of culture. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S. & Nisbett, R. E. (2008) Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:8552–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed