Adaptation for Culture
Media
Part of Adaptation for Culture
- Title
- Adaptation for Culture
- extracted text
-
Adaptation for Culture
JILL M. CHURCH
Abstract
The evolutionary study of human behavior has expanded into a broad spectrum of
theories and models seeking to explain how genetic evolution enables the development of human culture, how cultural evolution influences biological and psychological evolution, and investigating the ways these processes interact. While natural
selection and other genetic mechanisms determined the human ability to create culture, cultural practices can also affect the human genome. Researchers in a variety
of social science disciplines are also investigating the root causes of behavioral traits
in order to more effectively guide future adaptation to the current global environment. This essay briefly outlines the foundational research on the development of
sociobiological disciplines and outlines the application of evolutionary research to
current social problems from adapting to climate change and other environmental
stressors to altering maladaptive behaviors such as bullying or obesity. It also proposes key issues for future research, highlighting the need for rigorous empirical
study and using interdisciplinary teams to create a more robust understanding of
the influence culture has on our genes, and vice versa. Collaborative research by a
multidisciplinary team of geneticists, behavioral psychologists, anthropologists, and
biologists would provide a robust theoretical framework with multiple avenues for
study to understand why and how behavioral traits exist. This knowledge can then
be used to establish more effective policies to improve health and safety.
INTRODUCTION
The application of evolutionary theory to the development of human culture
has flourished across the social sciences over the past 40 years. Evolution is a
dynamic process. Genes have an impact on the evolution of human culture,
determining the ability of the human brain to acquire, store, and share knowledge. At the same time, culture affects genetic evolution by influencing gene
frequencies in a population. Lactose tolerance in adults is well recognized
as an example demonstrating how a cultural practice—drinking raw milk
in cattle-rearing cultures—has caused an evolutionary change in the human
genome. Biological, or genetic, evolution is a slow, ongoing process where
changes in the genetic makeup of a population occur from one generation to
the next. Cultural evolution is a far more ephemeral term, having different
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
meanings to different disciplines. In the 1950s, Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952)
identified 164 different definitions of culture. For our purposes in this essay,
culture broadly refers to the strategy by which humans adapt to the natural
environment. Culture encompasses cognitive, technological, political, social,
and economic components that are learned and transmitted to others.
This entry summarizes the development of the field of sociobiology and
the various theories attempting to clarify the interaction between biological
and cultural evolution. Popular theories of gene–culture coevolution, evolutionary psychology, and human behavioral ecology are described, current
applications of evolutionary research are outlined, and possible directions
for future research are suggested.
Much of the current research on biological and cultural adaptation is used
to determine the root causes of certain behaviors to increase the effectiveness
of planning to mitigate modern health risks. Environmental fluctuations, disease transmission, modern diet, high population densities, and rapid cultural
change are all factors contributing to the stressors of our modern world. By
understanding the forces that motivate humans to act the way they do, more
effective policies can be designed to foster human adaptation strategies.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Much research has been done on both the biological and cultural evolution
of Homo sapiens (Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, & Laland, 2011; Buskes,
2013; Gangestad, 2010; Laland, Odling-Smee, & Myles, 2010; Mesoudi,
2011; Mesoudi, Whiten, & Laland, 2006). While Charles Darwin’s On the
Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) was successful in demonstrating the fact of
evolution in the late nineteenth century, his proposal that natural selection
was the mechanism driving the process was less well received. In the 1930s
and 1940s, the integration of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory of
evolution resulted in a neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized
the importance of random mutation and variation within a population. This
idea, also known as the modern synthesis or modern evolutionary synthesis,
reflected the consensus derived from several biological specialties about the
mechanisms that drive evolution. In fact, heritable traits are determined by
genes and natural selection and sexual selection are the principal driving
forces of evolution. The term was created by Julian Huxley in his book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942), which incorporated ideas from genetics,
cytology, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology, originating both
in the field and in the laboratory. The modern synthesis opened researchers
to develop models applying the principles of evolutionary theory to the
development of human culture.
Adaptation for Culture
3
The discipline of ethology was also founded in the 1930s. A subtopic of
zoology, it focuses on the objective and scientific study of animal behavior in
its natural habitat. Ethologists typically focus on a particular behavior rather
than an individual species—looking at traits such as aggression and altruism across a variety of species. In the 1970s, it was argued that most ethology
research focused on individuals, and the term social ethology was used to distinguish the behavior of social groups and the social structure within them.
Today, there is a spectrum of approaches to the study of behavior, from animal cognition to comparative psychology, ethology, sociobiology, and behavioral ecology.
The discipline of sociobiology can be traced back to the 1940s, but it did
not gain widespread recognition until 1975, when Edward O. Wilson popularized the term in his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Sociobiology
is defined simply as the systematic study of the biological basis of social
behavior in organisms. It builds on the foundations of the modern synthesis
by adding four key concepts developed by William D. Hamilton and Robert
Trivers: inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, parental investment, and parent/offspring conflict. These concepts enabled sociobiologists to structure an
evolutionary account of social behavior that could be applied to any animal
group, relying on natural selection at the individual level (Hamilton, 1964;
Trivers, 1971).
The most recent step in Darwinian evolution has been taken by the school
of evolutionary psychology—a direct descendant of sociobiology. Contemporary evolutionary psychologists focus their research on understanding
the cognitive abilities of the human mind by examining traits such as
memory, perception, or language from a modern evolutionary perspective.
They attempt to identify which traits are evolved adaptations—products of
either natural selection or sexual selection that developed to solve recurrent
problems in ancient environments. Evolutionary psychologists propose that
universal behaviors seen across all cultures are candidates for evolutionary
adaptations, for example, the ability to determine the emotional state of
others, cooperation/altruism, aggression, or healthy mate selection.
The study of human behavior and evolution is cluttered with confusing
terminology. A brief search will encounter researchers calling themselves
Darwinian psychologists, evolutionary anthropologists, gene–culture
coevolutionists, culture selectionists, human ecologists, evolutionary psychologists, and more. Methodologies range from evolutionary psychology,
human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory (DIT), cultural evolution,
memetics, social ethology, and sociobiology. Some people consider all these
approaches to fall under the human sociobiology umbrella, while others
consider them to be distinctly different fields. These different schools often
agree on basic points, but differ in emphasis. Some cultural anthropologists
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
hold the extreme view that cultural evolution has nothing in common
with biological evolution, and they are completely separate processes. This
position is both theoretically and empirically groundless. Both systems
demonstrate the same fundamental processes of variation, selection, and
transmission. Other theories and methodologies focus on the level of
emphasis between the two, ranging from theories of culture having the
greater impact on biological evolution to genetics dominating over cultural
evolution.
No researcher believes that biological and cultural evolution are identical
in every respect. They are similar, but differ in important ways. For example,
one of the key components of evolution is inheritance, or the transmission
of genes/information. During the course of biological evolution, genes are
passed to the next generation through reproduction—the flow of information is vertical, from parent to offspring. The transmission of culture, on the
other hand, can be linear or horizontal. The flow of information might be
passed to offspring, contemporaries, or nonrelatives. Although different and
much faster than biological evolution, cultural evolution might still be considered “Darwinian” because both are characterized by the accumulation of
information, resulting in complex adaptations, being transmitted from one
generation to the next. The following methodologies vary in emphasis, focusing on the similarities or on the differences between biological and cultural
evolution, but all seem to generally agree that they are “similar, but different.” Given the diversity that exists in both types of evolution, it would be
easy to find examples to support either argument.
One popular approach to adaptation research is human behavioral ecology.
In this field of study, anthropologists attempt to demonstrate that humans
alter their behavior to reflect environmental conditions with the goal of maximizing their reproductive success. Mathematical modeling is used to determine which behaviors would maximize fitness under different conditions,
then groups of people are studied to see if their behavior matches the predicted outcomes.
Evolutionary psychology is another currently popular approach to study
human behavior from an evolutionary perspective, but evolutionary psychologists believe that evolution influenced psychological mechanisms to
deal with problems faced in ancient environments, not in current ones. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that behaviors that evolved long ago as beneficial may be maladaptive in our current environment. Another approach
to the study of human behavior is memetics. Memes are analogous to genes,
or basic units of culture. They can be words, beliefs, or concepts, such as the
wheel. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish
Gene. Memetics applies evolutionary principles to the replication and spread
Adaptation for Culture
5
of information, making meme transfer the mechanism driving human cultural evolution. Research methodologies that apply the concept of memetics
include cultural evolution, social analytics, viral marketing, public relations,
and more.
Another approach to adaptation studies is DIT, or gene–culture coevolution. In contrast to other approaches that imply culture overrides biology,
DIT postulates that humans are the products of the interaction between
biological evolution and cultural evolution. The three main claims of DIT
are that cultural capacities are adaptations, culture evolves, and genes and
culture coevolve. Peter Richardson and Robert Boyd published a book in
1985, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, arguing that biological evolution
produced the capacity for culture in humans and culture began to evolve
through natural selection. At the same time, the process of natural selection
acting on cultural variants impacted the biological evolution of humans. A
well-known example of this interaction is the coevolution of the cultural
practice of dairy herding and the physiological evolution of genes allowing
humans to digest milk beyond the age of weaning in cultures having a long
herding tradition. The 1985 publication contained extensive mathematical
models, challenging for the average reader to absorb. The authors wrote
a more approachable framework of DIT in 2006 titled Not by Genes Alone:
How Culture Transformed Human Evolution to update their model and make
it more accessible to the nonspecialist. DIT is a promising field due to its
scientific rigor. It could potentially be combined with other approaches to
develop an integrated theoretical research framework.
A relatively new development in evolutionary biology that ties into DIT is
niche construction theory (NCT). Niche construction is the idea that organisms have the capacity to modify the process of natural selection by making choices and participating in activities that modify their own and each
other’s environments (Odling-Smee, Laland, & Feldman, 2003). One clear
example is beavers constructing a dam that greatly modifies the immediate
area by flooding. Animals creating burrows, plants changing the composition of the atmosphere, and organic matter decaying are all examples of niche
construction. NCT is gaining momentum due to the development of population genetics theory, which has demonstrated that niche construction does
have an impact on evolutionary outcomes. This new perspective adds a third
inheritance to DIT and brings a fresh perspective and exposes new lines of
empirical research.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Regardless of the model, school of thought, or conceptual framework favored
by modern anthropological researchers, there are numerous applications for
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
empirical data gathered on adaptation, genetic evolution, and cultural evolution.
Despite arguments about the science, causes, or timing of climate change,
there is nearly unanimous consensus that it is happening. There has been
a recent flood of studies from agencies and research institutes around the
world investigating human adaptation in the face of impending climate
change. The environment has changed rapidly during the evolution of H.
sapiens. A key to survival has been the ability to imitate and learn from each
other. Boyd and Richardson have argued that with the rapid changes in
past environments, individuals could not have survived without sharing
and building on accumulated knowledge. There was no use in waiting
for evolutionary adaptations to occur—there simply has not been enough
time. The breakneck pace of cultural evolution allowed modern humans to
flourish.
More empirical research on vulnerability, sensitivity, resilience, stress, and
adaptive capacity at the group and individual level would provide valuable
data for agencies creating policies and predicting risks. The psychological
and cognitive aspects of human adaptation to climate change involve coping
with increasing climate variability—heat waves, droughts, wild fires, floods,
more intense and frequent storms, and disease outbreaks and related stressors. Regional populations generally adapt to the prevailing climatic conditions with behavioral, cultural, and technological responses. Extreme and
more frequent weather events are likely to stress populations beyond their
adaptation limits. Understanding the impact and health consequences of climate change on human populations will enable global agencies to derive
policies that alleviate some of the risks to human health in the (relatively)
near future.
Another area of cutting edge research involves determining if behavioral
traits are adaptive and finding ways to alter “bad” behavior in modern
populations. Evolutionary psychologists, especially, are looking at the evolutionary roots of socially problematic behavior. By understanding why certain
behaviors have evolved, new strategies and policies can be developed to
optimize methods of mitigating these social problems (Tybur & Griskevicius,
2012). Traits evolved in humans to cope with our ancestral environment in
ways that are unnecessary today. Behaviors evolved to benefit the individual, not the group as a whole. Traits that optimized survival: the ability to
find food, evade predators, find a mate and reproduce, altruism (including
cooperation and reciprocity), achieving status in the group, and avoiding
disease were challenges requiring different psychological developments in
the brain. Individuals with these survival skills produced viable offspring
and passed the knowledge and ability to the next generations.
Adaptation for Culture
7
Aggression is one behavior studied extensively today in this context. While
it likely evolved to compete against rivals for a mate or to gain status in the
social group, aggression can produce maladaptive behavior in modern society. For example, bullying is a form of aggression that has been observed in
every society researchers have examined (Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini,
2012). Zero-tolerance policies have been widely adopted as a response,
requiring bullies stop the behavior without understanding why they act
that way. Zero-tolerance policies, however, are ineffective. Bullies will not
stop participating in a behavior that works because authorities tell them
to stop. Using an evolutionary perspective, a more effective intervention
could involve a policy that rewards prosocial behavior, such as rewarding a
dominant teen who stands up for a bullied peer.
Another example of behavior currently under investigation involves eating and diet. In ancient environments, seeking nutrition was labor intensive. We evolved to enjoy the taste of fats and sugars because they provided
the most calorie-dense sustenance, and avoid foods that generate disgust
(spoiled meat). When food was scarce and difficult to store, this was a valuable trait. Today, this behavior is maladaptive, leading to overeating and poor
health. This evolved trait will be difficult to change simply by telling people
to eat healthy food. An evolutionary approach may instead suggest changing the taste of food to cater to evolutionary preferences without altering
the nutritional value. Understanding the purpose underlying evolutionary
behavioral adaptations may lead to more effective planning for our rapidly
changing global culture.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One key component of future adaptation research will be conducting empirical investigations and gathering evidence. Models, conceptual frameworks,
and theories abound in the sociobiology disciplines. However, researchers
repeatedly comment on the need for empirical data to support them. Methodological rigor in the study of human traits from an evolutionary perspective;
how and why they evolved, which traits are actually mapped onto cognitive
mechanisms, and how can this knowledge be applied to improvements in
today’s society are all questions generating innovative inquiry among adaptation researchers.
Human adaptation for culture encompasses both biological and cultural
evolution and the interactions between them. The concept necessarily
encompasses biological, anthropological, ecological, and behavioral points
of view working in tandem. Interdisciplinary research will be crucial for
this reason. Historically, human adaptation research has been conducted
in a variety of distinct disciplines or subfields, each standing alone. There
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
has been progress in integrating approaches and sharing research in recent
years, but there is much work to be done (Bolhuis et al., 2011). Collaborative
efforts by interdisciplinary teams of biologists, geneticists, behavioral
psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and more will provide a greater
pool of knowledge and research methodologies. Different approaches favor
different, but potentially complementary, methods to test hypotheses and
gather or analyze data. Surveys and questionnaires are subject to bias.
Observations and lab experiments provide context but are subject to error;
for example, small sample size. Mathematical modeling and simulation
predict possible outcomes, but tend to oversimplify real-world situations.
Using several of these approaches, however, to test one hypothesis would
result in a more robust, pluralistic discipline.
Human behavioral adaptation research is relevant in disciplines outside of
the traditional fields of anthropology, biology, and ecology. In addition to
obvious governmental agencies such as NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration), ambitious private companies are already planning
for space travel and colonization. There are physiological and psychological
challenges in adapting to space travel and interplanetary missions. The study
of human cognitive and psychomotor performance within extended periods
of weightlessness and exposure to stressors including microgravity, confinement, sleep disturbances, workload, “homesickness” for those not returning
to Earth, and radiation exposure will be needed.
REFERENCES
Bolhuis, J. J., Brown, G. R., Richardson, R. C., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Darwin
in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9, 1–8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109
Buskes, C. (2013). Darwinism extended: A survey of how the idea of cultural evolution evolved. Philosopiha, 41, 661–691. doi:10.1007/s11406-013-9415-8
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene (2nd rev. ed. 1989). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Gangestad, S. W. (2010). Exploring the evolutionary foundations of culture, an adaptationist framework. In M. Schaller (Ed.), Evolution, culture, and the human mind
(pp. 83–98). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I and II. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The modern synthesis. London, England: Allen and Unwin.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
47, 1–223.
Adaptation for Culture
9
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human
genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11, 137–148.
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture
and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural
evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 329–383.
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The
neglected process in evolution (No. 37). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology,
46, 35–57.
Tybur, J. M., & Griskevicius, V. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: A fresh perspective for understanding and changing problematic behavior. Public Administration
Review, 73, 12–22.
Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying
an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222–238.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
FURTHER READING
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.) (1995). The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Boyd, R., & Richardson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Cronk, L., Chagnon, N., & Irons, W. (Eds.) (1999). Adaptation and human behavior: An
anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Durham, W. H. (1991). Co-evolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on
human behavior. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Odling-Smee, J. F., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The
neglected process in evolution (Monographs in Population Biology, 37). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Richardson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human
evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, E. A. (2013). Agency and adaptation: New directions in evolutionary anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 103–120.
JILL M. CHURCH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jill M. Church has been the head of the Serials & Electronic Resources
Department (formerly Periodicals Department) of the library at D’Youville
College in Buffalo, NY for over 20 years. She serves as a book reviewer
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
for the journal Serials Review and a peer reviewer for the Journal of Library
Innovation. A background and interest in anthropology has resulted in the
publication of two book chapters and dozens of encyclopedia articles on
varied topics in the fields of anthropology, archeology, and environmental
sciences.
RELATED ESSAYS
Social Epigenetics: Incorporating Epigenetic Effects as Social Cause and Consequence (Sociology), Douglas L. Anderton and Kathleen F. Arcaro
Telomeres (Psychology), Nancy Adler and Aoife O’Donovan
Kin-Directed Behavior in Primates (Anthropology), Carol M. Berman
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Genetics and the Life Course (Sociology), Evan Charney
Sexual Behavior (Anthropology), Melissa Emery Thompson
Genetic and Environmental Approaches to Political Science (Political Science),
Zoltán Fazekas and Peter K. Hatemi
Evolutionary Approaches to Understanding Children’s Academic Achievement (Psychology), David C. Geary and Daniel B. Berch
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah
Hartman and Jay Belsky
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian Kandler et al.
Niche construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin
N. Laland and Michael O’Brien
Evolutionary Perspectives on Animal and Human Personality (Anthropology), Joseph H. Manson and Lynn A. Fairbanks
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare
-
Adaptation for Culture
JILL M. CHURCH
Abstract
The evolutionary study of human behavior has expanded into a broad spectrum of
theories and models seeking to explain how genetic evolution enables the development of human culture, how cultural evolution influences biological and psychological evolution, and investigating the ways these processes interact. While natural
selection and other genetic mechanisms determined the human ability to create culture, cultural practices can also affect the human genome. Researchers in a variety
of social science disciplines are also investigating the root causes of behavioral traits
in order to more effectively guide future adaptation to the current global environment. This essay briefly outlines the foundational research on the development of
sociobiological disciplines and outlines the application of evolutionary research to
current social problems from adapting to climate change and other environmental
stressors to altering maladaptive behaviors such as bullying or obesity. It also proposes key issues for future research, highlighting the need for rigorous empirical
study and using interdisciplinary teams to create a more robust understanding of
the influence culture has on our genes, and vice versa. Collaborative research by a
multidisciplinary team of geneticists, behavioral psychologists, anthropologists, and
biologists would provide a robust theoretical framework with multiple avenues for
study to understand why and how behavioral traits exist. This knowledge can then
be used to establish more effective policies to improve health and safety.
INTRODUCTION
The application of evolutionary theory to the development of human culture
has flourished across the social sciences over the past 40 years. Evolution is a
dynamic process. Genes have an impact on the evolution of human culture,
determining the ability of the human brain to acquire, store, and share knowledge. At the same time, culture affects genetic evolution by influencing gene
frequencies in a population. Lactose tolerance in adults is well recognized
as an example demonstrating how a cultural practice—drinking raw milk
in cattle-rearing cultures—has caused an evolutionary change in the human
genome. Biological, or genetic, evolution is a slow, ongoing process where
changes in the genetic makeup of a population occur from one generation to
the next. Cultural evolution is a far more ephemeral term, having different
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
meanings to different disciplines. In the 1950s, Kroeber and Kluckholn (1952)
identified 164 different definitions of culture. For our purposes in this essay,
culture broadly refers to the strategy by which humans adapt to the natural
environment. Culture encompasses cognitive, technological, political, social,
and economic components that are learned and transmitted to others.
This entry summarizes the development of the field of sociobiology and
the various theories attempting to clarify the interaction between biological
and cultural evolution. Popular theories of gene–culture coevolution, evolutionary psychology, and human behavioral ecology are described, current
applications of evolutionary research are outlined, and possible directions
for future research are suggested.
Much of the current research on biological and cultural adaptation is used
to determine the root causes of certain behaviors to increase the effectiveness
of planning to mitigate modern health risks. Environmental fluctuations, disease transmission, modern diet, high population densities, and rapid cultural
change are all factors contributing to the stressors of our modern world. By
understanding the forces that motivate humans to act the way they do, more
effective policies can be designed to foster human adaptation strategies.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Much research has been done on both the biological and cultural evolution
of Homo sapiens (Bolhuis, Brown, Richardson, & Laland, 2011; Buskes,
2013; Gangestad, 2010; Laland, Odling-Smee, & Myles, 2010; Mesoudi,
2011; Mesoudi, Whiten, & Laland, 2006). While Charles Darwin’s On the
Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) was successful in demonstrating the fact of
evolution in the late nineteenth century, his proposal that natural selection
was the mechanism driving the process was less well received. In the 1930s
and 1940s, the integration of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory of
evolution resulted in a neo-Darwinian theory of evolution that recognized
the importance of random mutation and variation within a population. This
idea, also known as the modern synthesis or modern evolutionary synthesis,
reflected the consensus derived from several biological specialties about the
mechanisms that drive evolution. In fact, heritable traits are determined by
genes and natural selection and sexual selection are the principal driving
forces of evolution. The term was created by Julian Huxley in his book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942), which incorporated ideas from genetics,
cytology, botany, morphology, ecology, and paleontology, originating both
in the field and in the laboratory. The modern synthesis opened researchers
to develop models applying the principles of evolutionary theory to the
development of human culture.
Adaptation for Culture
3
The discipline of ethology was also founded in the 1930s. A subtopic of
zoology, it focuses on the objective and scientific study of animal behavior in
its natural habitat. Ethologists typically focus on a particular behavior rather
than an individual species—looking at traits such as aggression and altruism across a variety of species. In the 1970s, it was argued that most ethology
research focused on individuals, and the term social ethology was used to distinguish the behavior of social groups and the social structure within them.
Today, there is a spectrum of approaches to the study of behavior, from animal cognition to comparative psychology, ethology, sociobiology, and behavioral ecology.
The discipline of sociobiology can be traced back to the 1940s, but it did
not gain widespread recognition until 1975, when Edward O. Wilson popularized the term in his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Sociobiology
is defined simply as the systematic study of the biological basis of social
behavior in organisms. It builds on the foundations of the modern synthesis
by adding four key concepts developed by William D. Hamilton and Robert
Trivers: inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, parental investment, and parent/offspring conflict. These concepts enabled sociobiologists to structure an
evolutionary account of social behavior that could be applied to any animal
group, relying on natural selection at the individual level (Hamilton, 1964;
Trivers, 1971).
The most recent step in Darwinian evolution has been taken by the school
of evolutionary psychology—a direct descendant of sociobiology. Contemporary evolutionary psychologists focus their research on understanding
the cognitive abilities of the human mind by examining traits such as
memory, perception, or language from a modern evolutionary perspective.
They attempt to identify which traits are evolved adaptations—products of
either natural selection or sexual selection that developed to solve recurrent
problems in ancient environments. Evolutionary psychologists propose that
universal behaviors seen across all cultures are candidates for evolutionary
adaptations, for example, the ability to determine the emotional state of
others, cooperation/altruism, aggression, or healthy mate selection.
The study of human behavior and evolution is cluttered with confusing
terminology. A brief search will encounter researchers calling themselves
Darwinian psychologists, evolutionary anthropologists, gene–culture
coevolutionists, culture selectionists, human ecologists, evolutionary psychologists, and more. Methodologies range from evolutionary psychology,
human behavioral ecology, dual inheritance theory (DIT), cultural evolution,
memetics, social ethology, and sociobiology. Some people consider all these
approaches to fall under the human sociobiology umbrella, while others
consider them to be distinctly different fields. These different schools often
agree on basic points, but differ in emphasis. Some cultural anthropologists
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
hold the extreme view that cultural evolution has nothing in common
with biological evolution, and they are completely separate processes. This
position is both theoretically and empirically groundless. Both systems
demonstrate the same fundamental processes of variation, selection, and
transmission. Other theories and methodologies focus on the level of
emphasis between the two, ranging from theories of culture having the
greater impact on biological evolution to genetics dominating over cultural
evolution.
No researcher believes that biological and cultural evolution are identical
in every respect. They are similar, but differ in important ways. For example,
one of the key components of evolution is inheritance, or the transmission
of genes/information. During the course of biological evolution, genes are
passed to the next generation through reproduction—the flow of information is vertical, from parent to offspring. The transmission of culture, on the
other hand, can be linear or horizontal. The flow of information might be
passed to offspring, contemporaries, or nonrelatives. Although different and
much faster than biological evolution, cultural evolution might still be considered “Darwinian” because both are characterized by the accumulation of
information, resulting in complex adaptations, being transmitted from one
generation to the next. The following methodologies vary in emphasis, focusing on the similarities or on the differences between biological and cultural
evolution, but all seem to generally agree that they are “similar, but different.” Given the diversity that exists in both types of evolution, it would be
easy to find examples to support either argument.
One popular approach to adaptation research is human behavioral ecology.
In this field of study, anthropologists attempt to demonstrate that humans
alter their behavior to reflect environmental conditions with the goal of maximizing their reproductive success. Mathematical modeling is used to determine which behaviors would maximize fitness under different conditions,
then groups of people are studied to see if their behavior matches the predicted outcomes.
Evolutionary psychology is another currently popular approach to study
human behavior from an evolutionary perspective, but evolutionary psychologists believe that evolution influenced psychological mechanisms to
deal with problems faced in ancient environments, not in current ones. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that behaviors that evolved long ago as beneficial may be maladaptive in our current environment. Another approach
to the study of human behavior is memetics. Memes are analogous to genes,
or basic units of culture. They can be words, beliefs, or concepts, such as the
wheel. The term was coined by Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book, The Selfish
Gene. Memetics applies evolutionary principles to the replication and spread
Adaptation for Culture
5
of information, making meme transfer the mechanism driving human cultural evolution. Research methodologies that apply the concept of memetics
include cultural evolution, social analytics, viral marketing, public relations,
and more.
Another approach to adaptation studies is DIT, or gene–culture coevolution. In contrast to other approaches that imply culture overrides biology,
DIT postulates that humans are the products of the interaction between
biological evolution and cultural evolution. The three main claims of DIT
are that cultural capacities are adaptations, culture evolves, and genes and
culture coevolve. Peter Richardson and Robert Boyd published a book in
1985, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, arguing that biological evolution
produced the capacity for culture in humans and culture began to evolve
through natural selection. At the same time, the process of natural selection
acting on cultural variants impacted the biological evolution of humans. A
well-known example of this interaction is the coevolution of the cultural
practice of dairy herding and the physiological evolution of genes allowing
humans to digest milk beyond the age of weaning in cultures having a long
herding tradition. The 1985 publication contained extensive mathematical
models, challenging for the average reader to absorb. The authors wrote
a more approachable framework of DIT in 2006 titled Not by Genes Alone:
How Culture Transformed Human Evolution to update their model and make
it more accessible to the nonspecialist. DIT is a promising field due to its
scientific rigor. It could potentially be combined with other approaches to
develop an integrated theoretical research framework.
A relatively new development in evolutionary biology that ties into DIT is
niche construction theory (NCT). Niche construction is the idea that organisms have the capacity to modify the process of natural selection by making choices and participating in activities that modify their own and each
other’s environments (Odling-Smee, Laland, & Feldman, 2003). One clear
example is beavers constructing a dam that greatly modifies the immediate
area by flooding. Animals creating burrows, plants changing the composition of the atmosphere, and organic matter decaying are all examples of niche
construction. NCT is gaining momentum due to the development of population genetics theory, which has demonstrated that niche construction does
have an impact on evolutionary outcomes. This new perspective adds a third
inheritance to DIT and brings a fresh perspective and exposes new lines of
empirical research.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Regardless of the model, school of thought, or conceptual framework favored
by modern anthropological researchers, there are numerous applications for
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
empirical data gathered on adaptation, genetic evolution, and cultural evolution.
Despite arguments about the science, causes, or timing of climate change,
there is nearly unanimous consensus that it is happening. There has been
a recent flood of studies from agencies and research institutes around the
world investigating human adaptation in the face of impending climate
change. The environment has changed rapidly during the evolution of H.
sapiens. A key to survival has been the ability to imitate and learn from each
other. Boyd and Richardson have argued that with the rapid changes in
past environments, individuals could not have survived without sharing
and building on accumulated knowledge. There was no use in waiting
for evolutionary adaptations to occur—there simply has not been enough
time. The breakneck pace of cultural evolution allowed modern humans to
flourish.
More empirical research on vulnerability, sensitivity, resilience, stress, and
adaptive capacity at the group and individual level would provide valuable
data for agencies creating policies and predicting risks. The psychological
and cognitive aspects of human adaptation to climate change involve coping
with increasing climate variability—heat waves, droughts, wild fires, floods,
more intense and frequent storms, and disease outbreaks and related stressors. Regional populations generally adapt to the prevailing climatic conditions with behavioral, cultural, and technological responses. Extreme and
more frequent weather events are likely to stress populations beyond their
adaptation limits. Understanding the impact and health consequences of climate change on human populations will enable global agencies to derive
policies that alleviate some of the risks to human health in the (relatively)
near future.
Another area of cutting edge research involves determining if behavioral
traits are adaptive and finding ways to alter “bad” behavior in modern
populations. Evolutionary psychologists, especially, are looking at the evolutionary roots of socially problematic behavior. By understanding why certain
behaviors have evolved, new strategies and policies can be developed to
optimize methods of mitigating these social problems (Tybur & Griskevicius,
2012). Traits evolved in humans to cope with our ancestral environment in
ways that are unnecessary today. Behaviors evolved to benefit the individual, not the group as a whole. Traits that optimized survival: the ability to
find food, evade predators, find a mate and reproduce, altruism (including
cooperation and reciprocity), achieving status in the group, and avoiding
disease were challenges requiring different psychological developments in
the brain. Individuals with these survival skills produced viable offspring
and passed the knowledge and ability to the next generations.
Adaptation for Culture
7
Aggression is one behavior studied extensively today in this context. While
it likely evolved to compete against rivals for a mate or to gain status in the
social group, aggression can produce maladaptive behavior in modern society. For example, bullying is a form of aggression that has been observed in
every society researchers have examined (Volk, Camilleri, Dane, & Marini,
2012). Zero-tolerance policies have been widely adopted as a response,
requiring bullies stop the behavior without understanding why they act
that way. Zero-tolerance policies, however, are ineffective. Bullies will not
stop participating in a behavior that works because authorities tell them
to stop. Using an evolutionary perspective, a more effective intervention
could involve a policy that rewards prosocial behavior, such as rewarding a
dominant teen who stands up for a bullied peer.
Another example of behavior currently under investigation involves eating and diet. In ancient environments, seeking nutrition was labor intensive. We evolved to enjoy the taste of fats and sugars because they provided
the most calorie-dense sustenance, and avoid foods that generate disgust
(spoiled meat). When food was scarce and difficult to store, this was a valuable trait. Today, this behavior is maladaptive, leading to overeating and poor
health. This evolved trait will be difficult to change simply by telling people
to eat healthy food. An evolutionary approach may instead suggest changing the taste of food to cater to evolutionary preferences without altering
the nutritional value. Understanding the purpose underlying evolutionary
behavioral adaptations may lead to more effective planning for our rapidly
changing global culture.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One key component of future adaptation research will be conducting empirical investigations and gathering evidence. Models, conceptual frameworks,
and theories abound in the sociobiology disciplines. However, researchers
repeatedly comment on the need for empirical data to support them. Methodological rigor in the study of human traits from an evolutionary perspective;
how and why they evolved, which traits are actually mapped onto cognitive
mechanisms, and how can this knowledge be applied to improvements in
today’s society are all questions generating innovative inquiry among adaptation researchers.
Human adaptation for culture encompasses both biological and cultural
evolution and the interactions between them. The concept necessarily
encompasses biological, anthropological, ecological, and behavioral points
of view working in tandem. Interdisciplinary research will be crucial for
this reason. Historically, human adaptation research has been conducted
in a variety of distinct disciplines or subfields, each standing alone. There
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
has been progress in integrating approaches and sharing research in recent
years, but there is much work to be done (Bolhuis et al., 2011). Collaborative
efforts by interdisciplinary teams of biologists, geneticists, behavioral
psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and more will provide a greater
pool of knowledge and research methodologies. Different approaches favor
different, but potentially complementary, methods to test hypotheses and
gather or analyze data. Surveys and questionnaires are subject to bias.
Observations and lab experiments provide context but are subject to error;
for example, small sample size. Mathematical modeling and simulation
predict possible outcomes, but tend to oversimplify real-world situations.
Using several of these approaches, however, to test one hypothesis would
result in a more robust, pluralistic discipline.
Human behavioral adaptation research is relevant in disciplines outside of
the traditional fields of anthropology, biology, and ecology. In addition to
obvious governmental agencies such as NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration), ambitious private companies are already planning
for space travel and colonization. There are physiological and psychological
challenges in adapting to space travel and interplanetary missions. The study
of human cognitive and psychomotor performance within extended periods
of weightlessness and exposure to stressors including microgravity, confinement, sleep disturbances, workload, “homesickness” for those not returning
to Earth, and radiation exposure will be needed.
REFERENCES
Bolhuis, J. J., Brown, G. R., Richardson, R. C., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Darwin
in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology. PLoS Biology, 9, 1–8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109
Buskes, C. (2013). Darwinism extended: A survey of how the idea of cultural evolution evolved. Philosopiha, 41, 661–691. doi:10.1007/s11406-013-9415-8
Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene (2nd rev. ed. 1989). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Gangestad, S. W. (2010). Exploring the evolutionary foundations of culture, an adaptationist framework. In M. Schaller (Ed.), Evolution, culture, and the human mind
(pp. 83–98). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I and II. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.
Huxley, J. (1942). Evolution: The modern synthesis. London, England: Allen and Unwin.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckholn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and
definitions. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,
47, 1–223.
Adaptation for Culture
9
Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human
genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11, 137–148.
Mesoudi, A. (2011). Cultural evolution: How Darwinian theory can explain human culture
and synthesize the social sciences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mesoudi, A., Whiten, A., & Laland, K. N. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural
evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 329–383.
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The
neglected process in evolution (No. 37). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology,
46, 35–57.
Tybur, J. M., & Griskevicius, V. (2012). Evolutionary psychology: A fresh perspective for understanding and changing problematic behavior. Public Administration
Review, 73, 12–22.
Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying
an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38, 222–238.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
FURTHER READING
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.) (1995). The adapted mind: Evolutionary
psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Boyd, R., & Richardson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Cronk, L., Chagnon, N., & Irons, W. (Eds.) (1999). Adaptation and human behavior: An
anthropological perspective. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Durham, W. H. (1991). Co-evolution: Genes, culture, and human diversity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on
human behavior. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Odling-Smee, J. F., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The
neglected process in evolution (Monographs in Population Biology, 37). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Richardson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human
evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, E. A. (2013). Agency and adaptation: New directions in evolutionary anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 103–120.
JILL M. CHURCH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Jill M. Church has been the head of the Serials & Electronic Resources
Department (formerly Periodicals Department) of the library at D’Youville
College in Buffalo, NY for over 20 years. She serves as a book reviewer
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
for the journal Serials Review and a peer reviewer for the Journal of Library
Innovation. A background and interest in anthropology has resulted in the
publication of two book chapters and dozens of encyclopedia articles on
varied topics in the fields of anthropology, archeology, and environmental
sciences.
RELATED ESSAYS
Social Epigenetics: Incorporating Epigenetic Effects as Social Cause and Consequence (Sociology), Douglas L. Anderton and Kathleen F. Arcaro
Telomeres (Psychology), Nancy Adler and Aoife O’Donovan
Kin-Directed Behavior in Primates (Anthropology), Carol M. Berman
The Sexual Division of Labor (Anthropology), Rebecca Bliege Bird and Brian
F. Codding
Genetics and the Life Course (Sociology), Evan Charney
Sexual Behavior (Anthropology), Melissa Emery Thompson
Genetic and Environmental Approaches to Political Science (Political Science),
Zoltán Fazekas and Peter K. Hatemi
Evolutionary Approaches to Understanding Children’s Academic Achievement (Psychology), David C. Geary and Daniel B. Berch
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology), Sarah
Hartman and Jay Belsky
Grandmothers and the Evolution of Human Sociality (Anthropology), Kristen
Hawkes and James Coxworth
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian Kandler et al.
Niche construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin
N. Laland and Michael O’Brien
Evolutionary Perspectives on Animal and Human Personality (Anthropology), Joseph H. Manson and Lynn A. Fairbanks
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare