What Is The Underlying Assumption Of Evolutionary Psychology Motivation Theory?

What Is The Underlying Assumption Of Evolutionary Psychology Motivation Theory
What is the underlying assumption of evolutionary psychology’s motivation theory? Drive-reduction theory. The idea that a physiological need creates an aroused tension state (a drive) that motivates an organism to satisfy the need (focuses on how our inner pushes and external pulls interact).

What is the evolutionary theory of motivation?

1. Evolutionary Theory – The evolutionary theory of motivation states that humans behave in ways to optimize their genetic fitness. The evolutionary theory focuses on getting results for your personhood. According to the theory of evolution, the most genetically fit will survive and their genes will eventually be spread across the whole population.

American philosopher and psychologist William James helped define the link between evolution and survival instinct as the key sources of motivation in humanity. Evolution implies that all animals, including humans, will act in a way that supports their highest reproductive potential. In this theory, the motivation behind behavior is seen as the need to survive and reproduce most optimally.

In other words, behavior is formed instinctually through the need to survive and pass on genes. Going hand-in-hand with evolutionary theory, optimization theory is about maximizing the desired results for the individual. It holds that humans will always choose the option that allows them to consume the most energy while expending the least amount of energy.

  • It is a form of cost-benefit analysis.
  • This relates to genetic fitness because humans are motivated by the need to reproduce and will thus make decisions based off what will optimize their genetic succession and reproductive potential.
  • Once you have an understanding of this theory at its most basic level, you can start to see it at work in your own daily life.

Understanding that every action you take is related to some degree may help you decide your motivation behind each action. Beginning your day with intention and reminding yourself of that intention throughout the day is a good way to ensure that the sum of your actions are pointed toward your predetermined goal.

What is the primary focus of evolutionary psychology?

Glossary – evolutionary psychology: a field of psychology that focuses on how universal patterns of behavior and cognitive processes have evolved over time theory of evolution by natural selection: the process by which organisms change over time so that those with genes and behaviors better suited for their environment will survive and reproduce, while those that are poorly suited for their environment will die off

What evolutionary psychology studies the evolution of behavior and the mind using principles of?

Evolutionary psychology studies why we as humans are alike. In particular, it studies the evolution of behavior and mind using principles of natural selection. Traits that contribute to reproduction and survival are more likely to be passed on.

What does evolutionary psychology study quizlet?

Evolutionary psychology. seeks to study the ultimate biological causes of behavior. Just as genetic traits have evolved and adapted over time, psychological traits can also evolve and be determined through natural selection.

What is an example of evolutionary motivation theory?

What Motivation Theory Can Tell Us About Human Behavior Researchers have developed a number of to explain motivation. Each individual theory tends to be rather limited in scope. However, by looking at the key ideas behind each theory, you can gain a better understanding of motivation as a whole.

Motivation is the force that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. It is what causes us to take action, whether to grab a snack to reduce hunger or enroll in college to earn a degree. The forces that lie beneath motivation can be biological, social,, or cognitive in nature. Let’s take a look at each one.

According to instinct theories, people are motivated to behave in certain ways because they are evolutionarily programmed to do so. An example of this in the animal world is seasonal migration. Animals do not learn to migrate to certain places at certain times each year; it is instead an inborn pattern of behavior.

  1. Some species to do this.
  2. Identified a list of human instincts that he believed were essential to survival, including fear, anger, love, shame, and modesty.
  3. The main problem with this theory is that it did not really explain behavior, it just described it.
  4. James presumed that we act on impulse, but that leaves out all the learning/conditioning that informs behavior.

By the 1920s, instinct theories were pushed aside in favor of other motivational theories, but contemporary evolutionary psychologists still study the influence of genetics and heredity on human behavior. According to the, people are motivated to take certain actions in order to reduce the internal tension that is caused by unmet needs.

  1. For example, you might be motivated to drink a glass of water in order to reduce the internal state of thirst.
  2. The drive theory is based on the concept of, or the idea that the body actively works to maintain a certain state of balance or equilibrium.
  3. This theory is useful in explaining behaviors that have a strong biological or physiological component, such as hunger or thirst.

The problem with the drive theory of motivation is that these behaviors are not always motivated purely by drive, or the state of tension or arousal caused by biological or physiological needs. For example, people often eat even when they are not really hungry.

The suggests that people take certain actions to either decrease or increase levels of arousal. When arousal levels get too low, for example, a person might watch an exciting movie or go for a jog. When arousal levels get too high, on the other hand, a person would probably look for ways to relax, such as meditating or reading a book.

According to this theory, we are motivated to maintain an optimal level of arousal, although this level can vary based on the individual or the situation. Humanistic theories of motivation are based on the idea that people also have strong cognitive reasons to perform various actions.

This is famously illustrated in Abraham Maslow’s, which describes various levels of needs and motivations. Maslow’s hierarchy suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced needs. For example, people are first motivated to fulfill basic biological needs for food and shelter, then to progress through higher needs like safety, love, and esteem.

Once these needs have been met, the primary motivator becomes the need for self-actualization, or the desire to fulfill one’s individual potential. Maslow was interested in learning about what makes people happy and the things that they do to achieve that aim, rather than focusing on problematic behaviors.

The suggests that people are motivated to do things because of external rewards. For example, you might be motivated to go to work each day for the monetary reward of being paid. Behavioral learning concepts such as association and play an important role in this theory of motivation. This theory shares some similarities with the behaviorist concept of,

In operant conditioning, behaviors are learned by forming associations with outcomes. Reinforcement strengthens a behavior while punishment weakens it. While incentive theory is similar, it instead proposes that people intentionally pursue certain courses of action in order to gain rewards.

The greater the perceived rewards, the more strongly people are motivated to pursue those reinforcements. Incentives can arise from outside (extrinsic) or inside (intrinsic) an individual. Intrinsic motivation is when you engage in a behavior because you find it rewarding for your own sake, rather than from the desire for an external reward.

Extrinsic Motivation

  • Going to work to get paid
  • Studying to get a good grade
  • Working hard to get a raise or recognition from your boss
  • Tidying your house to avoid feeling embarrassed when company comes over

Intrinsic Motivation

  • Working because you enjoy the job
  • Studying because you find the subject interesting
  • Tackling a new project because you love a challenge
  • Tidying your house because a clean home keeps you calm

The expectancy theory of motivation suggests that when we are thinking about the future, we formulate different expectations about what we think will happen. When we predict that there will most likely be a positive outcome, we believe that we are able to make that possible future a reality.

  • Valence : the value people place on the potential outcome
  • Instrumentality : whether people believe that they have a role to play in the predicted outcome
  • Expectancy : the belief that one has the capabilities to produce the outcome

While no single theory can adequately explain all human motivation, looking at the individual theories can offer a greater understanding of the forces that cause us to take action. In reality, there are likely many different forces that interact to motivate behavior.

James W. Instinct. In: The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company; 1890.

You might be interested:  How Much Is A Master'S Degree In Psychology?

: What Motivation Theory Can Tell Us About Human Behavior

What are the 4 main theories of motivation?

Learning Objectives –

Explain how employees are motivated according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Explain how ERG theory addresses the limitations of Maslow’s hierarchy. Describe the difference between factors contributing to employee motivation and how these differ from factors contributing to dissatisfaction. Describe the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation, and how these needs affect work behavior.

The earliest answer to motivation involved understanding individual needs. Specifically, early researchers thought that employees try hard and demonstrate goal-driven behavior to satisfy needs. For example, an employee who is always walking around the office talking to people may have a need for companionship and his behavior may be a way of satisfying this need.

What is the primary assumption of evolutionary perspective?

Answer and Explanation: The three main assumptions underlying Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection include that organisms reproduce themselves, that this process results in variations, and that some of the variations survive better than others.

What are the key features of evolutionary psychology?

Language – According to Steven Pinker, who builds on the work by Noam Chomsky, the universal human ability to learn to talk between the ages of 1 – 4, basically without training, suggests that language acquisition is a distinctly human psychological adaptation (see, in particular, Pinker’s The Language Instinct ).

Pinker and Bloom (1990) argue that language as a mental faculty shares many likenesses with the complex organs of the body which suggests that, like these organs, language has evolved as an adaptation, since this is the only known mechanism by which such complex organs can develop. Pinker follows Chomsky in arguing that the fact that children can learn any human language with no explicit instruction suggests that language, including most of grammar, is basically innate and that it only needs to be activated by interaction.

Chomsky himself does not believe language to have evolved as an adaptation, but suggests that it likely evolved as a byproduct of some other adaptation, a so-called spandrel, But Pinker and Bloom argue that the organic nature of language strongly suggests that it has an adaptational origin.

  • Evolutionary psychologists hold that the FOXP2 gene may well be associated with the evolution of human language.
  • In the 1980s, psycholinguist Myrna Gopnik identified a dominant gene that causes language impairment in the KE family of Britain.
  • This gene turned out to be a mutation of the FOXP2 gene.
  • Humans have a unique allele of this gene, which has otherwise been closely conserved through most of mammalian evolutionary history.

This unique allele seems to have first appeared between 100 and 200 thousand years ago, and it is now all but universal in humans. However, the once-popular idea that FOXP2 is a ‘grammar gene’ or that it triggered the emergence of language in Homo sapiens is now widely discredited.

  1. Currently, several competing theories about the evolutionary origin of language coexist, none of them having achieved a general consensus.
  2. Researchers of language acquisition in primates and humans such as Michael Tomasello and Talmy Givón, argue that the innatist framework has understated the role of imitation in learning and that it is not at all necessary to posit the existence of an innate grammar module to explain human language acquisition.

Tomasello argues that studies of how children and primates actually acquire communicative skills suggest that humans learn complex behavior through experience, so that instead of a module specifically dedicated to language acquisition, language is acquired by the same cognitive mechanisms that are used to acquire all other kinds of socially transmitted behavior.

  • On the issue of whether language is best seen as having evolved as an adaptation or as a spandrel, evolutionary biologist W.
  • Tecumseh Fitch, following Stephen J.
  • Gould, argues that it is unwarranted to assume that every aspect of language is an adaptation, or that language as a whole is an adaptation.

He criticizes some strands of evolutionary psychology for suggesting a pan-adaptionist view of evolution, and dismisses Pinker and Bloom’s question of whether “Language has evolved as an adaptation” as being misleading. He argues instead that from a biological viewpoint the evolutionary origins of language is best conceptualized as being the probable result of a convergence of many separate adaptations into a complex system.

  1. A similar argument is made by Terrence Deacon who in The Symbolic Species argues that the different features of language have co-evolved with the evolution of the mind and that the ability to use symbolic communication is integrated in all other cognitive processes.
  2. If the theory that language could have evolved as a single adaptation is accepted, the question becomes which of its many functions has been the basis of adaptation.

Several evolutionary hypotheses have been posited: that language evolved for the purpose of social grooming, that it evolved as a way to show mating potential or that it evolved to form social contracts. Evolutionary psychologists recognize that these theories are all speculative and that much more evidence is required to understand how language might have been selectively adapted.

What is the main point of evolutionary psychology in the study of motivation the main point is quizlet?

What is the main point of evolutionary psychology in the study of motivation? The main point is how evolutionary history determines what motivates people today.

What are the three important elements of evolutionary psychology focuses on?

4. Philosophy of biology vs. Evolutionary Psychology – Many philosophers have criticized evolutionary psychology. Most of these critics are philosophers of biology who argue that the research tradition suffers from an overly zealous form of adaptationism (Griffiths 1996; Richardson 1996; Grantham and Nichols 1999; Lloyd 1999; Richardson 2007), an untenable reductionism (Dupre 1999; Dupre 2001), a “bad empirical bet” about modules (Sterelny 1995; Sterelny and Griffiths 1999; Sterelny 2003), a fast and loose conception of fitness (Lloyd 1999; Lloyd and Feldman 2002); and most of the above and much more (Buller 2005) (cf.

  1. Downes 2005).
  2. All of these philosophers share one version or other of Buller’s view: “I am unabashedly enthusiastic about efforts to apply evolutionary theory to human psychology” (2005, x).
  3. But if philosophers of biology are not skeptical of the fundamental idea behind the project, as Buller’s quote indicates, what are they so critical of? What is at stake are differing views about how to best characterize evolution and hence how to generate evolutionary hypotheses and how to test evolutionary hypotheses.

For evolutionary psychologists, the most interesting contribution that evolutionary theory makes is the explanation of apparent design in nature or the explanation of the production of complex organs by appeal to natural selection. Evolutionary psychologists generate evolutionary hypotheses by first finding apparent design in the world, say in our psychological make up, and then presenting a selective scenario that would have led to the production of the trait that exhibits apparent design.

  • The hypotheses evolutionary psychologists generate, given that they are usually hypotheses about our psychological capacities, are tested by standard psychological methods.
  • Philosophers of biology challenge evolutionary psychologists on both of these points.
  • I introduce a few examples of criticisms in each of these two areas below and then look at some responses to philosophical criticisms of evolutionary psychology.

Adaptation is the one biological concept that is central to most debates over evolutionary psychology. Every theoretical work on evolutionary psychology presents the research tradition as being primarily focused on psychological adaptations and goes on to give an account of what adaptations are (see e.g.

  • Tooby and Cosmides 1992; Buss et al.1998; Simpson and Campbell 2005; Tooby and Cosmides 2005).
  • Much of the philosophical criticism of evolutionary psychology addresses its approach to adaptation or its form of adaptationism.
  • Let us quickly review the basics from the perspective of philosophy of biology.

Here is how Elliott Sober defines an adaptation: “characteristic c is an adaptation for doing task t in a population if and only if members of the population now have c because, ancestrally, there was selection for having c and c conferred a fitness advantage because it performed task t ” (Sober 2000, 85).

  1. Sober makes a few further clarifications of the notion of adaptation that are helpful.
  2. First, we should distinguish between a trait that is adaptive and a trait that is an adaptation,
  3. Any number of traits can be adaptive without those traits being adaptations.
  4. A sea turtle’s forelegs are useful for digging in the sand to bury eggs but they are not adaptations for nest building (Sober 2000, 85).

Also, traits can be adaptations without being currently adaptive for a given organism. Vestigial organs such as our appendix or vestigial eyes in cave dwelling organisms are examples of such traits (Sterelny and Griffiths 1999). Second, we should distinguish between ontogenic and phylogenetic adaptations (Sober 2000, 86).

The adaptations of interest to evolutionary biologists are phylogenetic adaptations, which arise over evolutionary time and impact the fitness of the organism. Ontogenetic adaptations, including any behavior we learn in our lifetimes, can be adaptive to the extent that an organism benefits from them but they are not adaptations in the relevant sense.

Finally, adaptation and function are closely related terms. On one of the prominent views of function—the etiological view of functions—adaptation and function are more or less coextensive; to ask for the function of an organ is to ask why it is present.

On the Cummins view of functions adaptation and function are not coextensive, as on the Cummins view, to ask what an organ’s function is, is to ask what it does (Sober 2000, 86–87) (cf. Sterelny and Griffiths 1999, 220–224). Evolutionary psychologists focus on psychological adaptations. One consistent theme in the theoretical work of evolutionary psychologists is that “adaptations, the functional components of organisms, are identified by evidence of their design: the exquisite match between organism structure and environment” (Hagen 2005, 148).

The way in which psychological adaptations are identified is by evolutionary functional analysis, which is a type of reverse engineering. “Reverse engineering is a process of figuring out the design of a mechanism on the basis of an analysis of the tasks it performs.

Evolutionary functional analysis is a form of reverse engineering in that it attempts to reconstruct the mind’s design from an analysis of the problems the mind must have evolved to solve” (Buller 2005, 92). Many philosophers object to evolutionary psychologists’ over attribution of adaptations on the basis of apparent design.

Here some are following Gould and Lewontin’s (1979) lead when they worry that accounting for apparent design in nature in terms of adaptation amounts to telling just-so stories but they could just as easily cite Williams (1966), who also cautioned against the over attribution of adaptation as an explanation for biological traits.

  • While it is true that evolutionary functional analysis can lend itself to just-so story telling, this is not the most interesting problem that confronts evolutionary psychology, several other interesting problems have been identified.
  • For example, Elisabeth Lloyd (1999) derives a criticism of evolutionary psychology from Gould and Lewontin’s criticism of sociobiology, emphasizing the point that evolutionary psychologists’ adaptationism leads them to ignore alternative evolutionary processes.
You might be interested:  What Is A Single Blind Study In Psychology?

Buller takes yet another approach to evolutionary psychologists’ adaptationism. What lies behind Buller’s criticisms of evolutionary psychologists’ adaptationism is a different view than theirs about what is important in evolutionary thinking (Buller 2005).

  • Buller thinks that evolutionary psychologists overemphasize design and that they make the contentious assumption that with respect to the traits they are interested in, evolution is finished, rather than ongoing.
  • Sober’s definition of adaptation is not constrained only to apply to organs or other traits that exhibit apparent design.

Rather, clutch size (in birds), schooling (in fish), leaf arrangement, foraging strategies and all manner of traits can be adaptations (cf. Seger and Stubblefield 1996). Buller argues the more general point that phenotypic plasticity of various types can be an adaptation, because it arises in various organisms as a result of natural selection.

The difference here between Buller (and other philosophers and biologists) and evolutionary psychologists is a difference in the explanatory scope that they attribute to natural selection. For evolutionary psychologists, the hallmark of natural selection is a well functioning organ and for their critics, the results of natural selection can be seen in an enormous range of traits ranging from the specific apparent design features of organs to the most general response profiles in behavior.

According to Buller, this latter approach opens up the range of possible evolutionary hypotheses that can account for human behavior. Rather than being restricted to accounting for our behavior in terms of the joint output of many specific modular mechanisms, we can account for our behavior by appealing to selection acting upon many different levels of traits.

This difference in emphasis on what is important in evolutionary theory also is at the center of debates between evolutionary psychologists and behavioral ecologists, who argue that behaviors, rather than just the mechanisms that underlie them, can be adaptations (cf. Downes 2001). Further, this difference in emphasis is what leads to the wide range of alternate evolutionary hypotheses that Sterelny (Sterelny 2003) presents to explain human behavior.

Given that philosophers like Buller and Sterelny are adaptationists, they are not critical of evolutionary psychologists’ adaptationism. Rather, they are critical of the narrow explanatory scope of the type of adaptationism evolutionary psychologists adopt (cf.

Downes 2015). Buller’s criticism that evolutionary psychologists assume that evolution is finished for the traits that they are interested in connects worries about the understanding of evolutionary theory with worries about the testing of evolutionary hypotheses. Here is Tooby & Cosmides’ clear statement of the assumption that Buller is worried about: “evolutionary psychologists primarily explore the design of the universal, evolved psychological and neural architecture that we all share by virtue of being human.

Evolutionary psychologists are usually less interested in human characteristics that vary due to genetic differences because they recognize that these differences are unlikely to be evolved adaptations central to human nature. Of the three kinds of characteristics that are found in the design of organisms – adaptations, by-products, and noise – traits caused by genetic variants are predominantly evolutionary noise, with little adaptive significance, while complex adaptations are likely to be universal in the species” (Tooby and Cosmides 2005, 39).

  • This line of thinking also captures evolutionary psychologists’ view of human nature: human nature is our collection of universally shared adaptations.
  • See Downes and Machery 2013 for more discussion of this and other, contrasting biologically based accounts of human nature.) The problem here is that it is false to assume that adaptations cannot be subject to variation.

The underlying problem is the constrained notion of adaptation. Adaptations are traits that arise as a result of natural selection and not traits that exhibit design and are universal in a given species (cf. Seger and Stubblefield 1996). As a result, it is quite consistent to argue, as Buller does, that many human traits may still be under selection and yet reasonably be called adaptations.

Finally, philosophers of biology have articulated several different types of adaptationism (see e.g. Godfrey-Smith 2001; Lewens 2009; Sober 2000). While some of these types of adaptationism can be reasonably seen placing constraints on how evolutionary research is carried out, Godfrey-Smith’s “explanatory adaptationism” is different in character (Godfrey-Smith 2001).

Explanatory adaptationism is the view that apparent design is one of the big questions we face in explaining our natural world and natural selection is the big (and only supportable) answer to such a big question. Explanatory adaptationism is often adopted by those who want to distinguish evolutionary thinking from creationism or intelligent design and is the way evolutionary psychologists often couch their work to distinguish it from their colleagues in the broader social sciences.

While explanatory adaptationism does serve to distinguish evolutionary psychology from such markedly different approaches to accounting for design in nature, it does not place many clear constraints on the way in which evolutionary explanations should be sought (cf. Downes 2015). So far these are disagreements that are located in differing views about the nature and scope of evolutionary explanation but they have ramifications in the discussion about hypothesis testing.

If the traits of interest to evolutionary psychologists are universally distributed, then we should expect to find them in all humans. This partly explains the stock that evolutionary psychologists put in cross cultural psychological tests (see e.g. Buss 1990).

  • If we find evidence for the trait in a huge cross section of humans, then this supports our view that the trait is an adaptation —on the assumption that adaptations are organ-like traits that are products of natural selection but not subject to variation.
  • But given the wider scope view of evolution defended by philosophers of biology, this method of testing seems wrong-headed as a test of an evolutionary hypothesis.

Certainly such testing can result in the very interesting results that certain preference profiles are widely shared cross culturally but the test does not speak to the evolutionary hypothesis that the preferences are adaptations (cf. Lloyd 1999; Buller 2005).

Another worry that critics have about evolutionary psychologists’ approach to hypothesis testing is that they give insufficient weight to serious alternate hypotheses that fit the relevant data. Buller dedicates several chapters of his book on evolutionary psychology to an examination of hypothesis testing and many of his criticisms center around the introduction of alternate hypotheses that do as good a job, or a better job, of accounting for the data.

For example, he argues that the hypothesis of assortative mating by status does a better job of accounting for some of evolutionary psychologists’ mate selection data than their preferred high status preference hypothesis. This debate hangs on how the empirical tests come out.

The previous debate is more closely connected to theoretical issues in philosophy of biology. I said in my introduction that there is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise and some philosophers of biology continue to remind us of this sentiment (see e.g.

Dupre 2012). However the relevant consensus is not complete, there are some proponents of evolutionary psychology among philosophers of science. One way of defending evolutionary psychology is to rebut criticism. Edouard Machery and Clark Barrett (2007) do just that in their sharply critical review of Buller’s book.

Another way to defend evolutionary psychology is to practice it (at least to the extent that philosophers can, i.e. theoretically). This is what Robert Arp (2006) does in a recent article. I briefly review both responses below. Machery and Barrett (2007) argue that Buller has no clear critical target as there is nothing to the idea that there is a research tradition of evolutionary psychology that is distinct from the broader enterprise of the evolutionary understanding of human behavior.

They argue that theoretical tenets and methods are shared by many in the biology of human behavior. For example, many are adaptationists. But as we saw above, evolutionary psychologists and behavioral ecologists can both call themselves adaptationist but their particular approach to adaptationism dictates the range of hypotheses that they can generate, the range of traits that can be counted as adaptations and impacts upon the way in which hypotheses are tested.

  • Research traditions can share some broad theoretical commitments and yet still be distinct research traditions.
  • Secondly, they argue against Buller’s view that past environments are not stable enough to produce the kind of psychological adaptations that evolutionary psychologists propose.
  • They take this to be a claim that no adaptations can arise from an evolutionary arms race situation, for example, between predators and prey.

But again, I think that the disagreement here is over what counts as an adaptation. Buller does not deny that adaptations— traits that arise as a product of natural selection—arise from all kinds of unstable environments. What he denies is that organ-like, special purpose adaptations are the likely result of such evolutionary scenarios.

Arp (2006) defends a hypothesis about a kind of module—scenario visualization—a psychological adaptation that arose in our hominid history in response to the demands of tool making, such as constructing spear throwing devices for hunting. Arp presents his hypothesis in the context of demonstrating the superiority of his approach to evolutionary psychology, which he calls “Narrow Evolutionary Psychology,” over “Broad Evolutionary Psychology,” with respect to accounting for archaeological evidence and facts about our psychology.

You might be interested:  Sociology Vs Psychology Which Is Easier?

While Arp’s hypothesis is innovative and interesting, he by no means defends it conclusively. This is partly because his strategy is to compare his hypothesis with archaeologist Steven Mithen’s (see e.g.1996) non-modular “cognitive fluidity” hypothesis that is proposed to account for the same data.

The problem here is that Mithen’s view is only one of the many alternative, evolutionary explanations of human tool making behavior. While Arp’s modular thesis may be superior to Mithen’s, he has not compared it to Sterelny’s (2003; 2012) account of tool making and tool use or to Boyd and Richerson’s (see e.g.2005) account and hence not ruled these accounts out as plausible alternatives.

As neither of these alternative accounts rely on the postulation of psychological modules, evolutionary psychology is not adequately defended.

What does the evolutionary approach to psychological research focus on?

Evolutionary Approach Evolutionary approach uses evolutionary ideas such as adaptation, reproduction, and natural selection as the basis for explaining specific human behaviors.The purpose of this approach is to bring the functional way of thinking about biological mechanisms such as the immune system into the field of psychology and to approach psychological mechanisms in a similar way.

  1. In other words, evolutionary psychology is focused on how evolution has shaped the mind and behavior.
  2. The evolutionary perspective considers many different traits which include memory, perception and language.
  3. In this perspective, however, it considers these traits as adaptations that have occurred within the human body over time.

With the evolutionary perspective scientists look at the way a new trait will evolve in the average person. The evolutionary perspective says the only reason that the human race continues to survive and continues to function in the best way possible is through natural selection.

How do we define evolutionary psychology?

Top Definitions Quiz Examples

This shows grade level based on the word’s complexity. This shows grade level based on the word’s complexity. noun the branch of psychology that studies the mental adaptations of humans to a changing environment, especially differences in behavior, cognition, and brain structure.

What is the study of evolutionary psychology?

Key concepts and theories in evolutionary psychology – Evolutionary psychologists use evolutionary theory (and evolutionary biology) as a meta-theoretical framework to generate hypotheses about human psychology and behavior. Here, we introduce some of the main theories and concepts from evolutionary psychology that may be relevant to the study of organizations.

What is an example of evolutionary psychology theory?

For example, as the ability to recognize poisonous snakes was passed down through generations, evolutionary psychology theory says that our brains adapted to include instinctual fear and caution around snakes.

What is the biological theory of motivation in psychology?

What Is Instinct Theory? – According to the instinct theory of motivation, all organisms are born with innate biological tendencies that help them survive. This theory suggests that instincts drive all behaviors. So, what exactly is instinct? Instincts are goal-directed and innate patterns of behavior that are not the result of learning or experience.

Why is evolutionary psychology criticized?

Criticism – Critics assert that evolutionary psychology fails to produce experiments that disentangle potential adaptive bases of behavior from other evolutionary influences. One premise of evolutionary psychology that distinguishes it from other theories of human behavior is that some mental traits are thought to be adaptive.

Critics point out that within evolutionary biology there are many other non-adaptive pathways along which evolution can move to produce the behaviors seen in humans today. Natural selection is not the only evolutionary process that can change gene frequencies and produce novel traits. Genetic drift refers to random effects resulting from chance variation in the genes, environment, or development.

Evolutionary by-products are traits that were not specially designed for an adaptive function, although they may also be species-typical and may also confer benefits on the organism. A “spandrel” is a term coined by Gould and Lewontin (1979a) for traits which confer no adaptive advantage to an organism, but are ‘carried along’ by an adaptive trait.

Gould advocates the hypothesis that cognition in humans came about as a spandrel: “Natural selection made the human brain big, but most of our mental properties and potentials may be spandrels – that is, nonadaptive side consequences of building a device with such structural complexity”, Once a trait acquired by some other mechanism confers an adaptive advantage, as evolutionary psychologists claim that many of our “mental properties and potentials” do, it may be open to further selection as an “exaptation”.

Critics allege that the adaptive (and exaptive) significance of mental traits studied by evolutionary psychologists has not been shown, and that selection has not necessarily guided the appearance of such traits.

Which motivation theory is best and why?

1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – One of the most well-known motivation theories, the hierarchy of needs was published by psychologist Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper ” A Theory of Human Motivation,” The gist is that Maslow’s hierarchy outlines five tiers of human needs, commonly represented by a pyramid. These five tiers are:

  • Physiological needs: Food, water, shelter, air, sleep, clothing, reproduction
  • Safety needs: Personal security, employment, resources, health, property
  • Love and belonging: Family, friendship, intimacy, a sense of connection
  • Esteem: Status, recognition, self-esteem, respect
  • Self-actualization: The ability to reach your full potential

What Is The Underlying Assumption Of Evolutionary Psychology Motivation Theory Maslow’s hierarchy of needs As the term “hierarchy” implies, people tend to seek out their basic needs first (which make up the base of the pyramid). After that, they move to the needs in the next tier until they reach the tip of the pyramid. In this same paper, however, Maslow clarifies that his hierarchy of needs isn’t quite as sequential as the pyramid framework might lead people to believe.

What is the most common motivation theory?

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – One of the most commonly known and influential workplace motivation theories was presented by Abraham Maslow and it is the Hierarchy of Needs. The theory suggests that humans are motivated to satisfy five basic needs which, as the title suggests, are arranged in a hierarchy. The hierarchy is represented by 5 steps:

Physiological needs – e.g. hunger, thirst, sleep Safety needs – e.g. freedom, protection and no pain Social needs – e.g. love, friendship and involvement in social activities Esteem needs – e.g. self-confidence, recognition and appreciation Self-actualisation – e.g. becoming the very best you can be

These 5 progressive categories begin with basic physical needs and progress up to the need for personal growth and career development, It’s asserted that a satisfied need is not a motivator and so once one set of needs has been met an individual is motivated to reach the next level of needs.

  1. A human’s innate desire to work our way up the hierarchy means that it is the unsatisfied needs that motivate a person to pursue satisfaction rather than the achievement of a set of needs.
  2. It’s claimed that employers must meet each level of an employee’s needs for them to be fully committed to workplace goals.

Failure to meet an employee’s needs at any level may result in a lack of job fulfillment and cause such individuals to fulfill these needs on their own. This could be through seeking new employment that provides better opportunities.

What are the 5 stages of motivation theory?

Based on more than 15 years of research, the TTM has found that individuals move through a series of five stages ( precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance ) in the adoption of healthy behaviors or cessation of unhealthy ones.

What is evolutionary theory?

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that all species are related and gradually change over time. Evolution relies on there being genetic variation in a population which affects the physical characteristics (phenotype) of an organism. Some of these characteristics may give the individual an advantage over other individuals which they can then pass on to their offspring.

What is the evolutionary approach?

Wrapping Up the Evolutionary Perspective and AP® Psychology – The evolutionary perspective considers how the human race has managed to survive for this long and how it has managed to become better as time goes on. This theory, which is found in as well as biology, considers evolution as a necessary aspect of turning into a stronger human race.1.

The evolutionary perspective relates to the way that cognitive behaviors go through the process of natural selection just as the human body has done.2. This perspective also considers the way that emotions, memory, perspective and more have been used in history and have evolved in the current era. This also considers how much is necessary for the future when it comes to changes in the psychology of the human race.3.

The evolutionary perspective was founded by Charles Darwin in the 19 th 4. This perspective has brought the mind through the caveman era to the modern era much as the biological version brought the body through these eras. This theory is still in use today in many ways and most especially when it comes to the biological area of evolution.

The theory considers a number of ways that different people will continue to grow and develop throughout each consecutive generation. This has occurred throughout history and will continue to occur throughout the future that will contribute to the potential of evolution. Make sure to review this along with other perspectives to best prepare for your AP® Psychology exam.

: Evolutionary Perspective: AP® Psychology Crash Course

Which theory of motivation was replaced by the evolutionary theory?

– Instinct theory (now replaced by the evolutionary perspective) focuses on genetically predisposed behaviors.