DSG
Core Disgust
Class: I - Natural Selection
EPA Total Score: 21 /100
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2000). The evolution of human incest avoidance mechanisms: An evolutionary psychological approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 819-826.
Abstract: Kin–recognition systems have been hypothesized to exist in humans, and adaptively to regulate altruism and incest avoidance among close genetic kin. This latter function allows the architecture of the kin recognition system to be mapped by quantitatively matching individual variation in opposition to incest to individual variation in developmental parameters, such as family structure and co–residence patterns. Methodological difficulties that appear when subjects are asked to disclose incestuous inclinations can be circumvented by measuring their opposition to incest in third parties, i.e. morality. This method allows a direct test of Westermarck's original hypothesis that childhood co–residence with an opposite–sex individual predicts the strength of moral sentiments regarding third–party sibling incest. Results support Westermarck's hypothesis and the model of kin recognition that it implies. Co–residence duration objectively predicts genetic relatedness, making it a reliable cue to kinship. Co–residence duration predicts the strength of opposition to incest, even after controlling for relatedness and even when co–residing individuals are genetically unrelated. This undercuts kin–recognition models requiring matching to self (through, for example, major histocompatibility complex or phenotypic markers). Subjects' beliefs about relatedness had no effect after controlling for co–residence, indicating that systems regulating kin–relevant behaviours are non–conscious, and calibrated by co–residence, not belief.
Submitted by:
Supporting Evidence
75/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Psychological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Supporting Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is an Evolved Psychological Adaptation (EPA) - i.e., that it has been shaped by natural selection to solve a particular adaptive problem.
Challenging Evidence
0/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Psychological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Challenging Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is not an EPA - e.g., that it is a product of cultural learning or genetic drift, or maybe it does not exist at all. However over each line of evidence for a description.