+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Ermer , Cosmides , Tooby By: Breana & Bryan

Ermer , Cosmides , Tooby By: Breana & Bryan

Date post: 22-Feb-2016
Category:
Upload: calder
View: 23 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Relative status regulates risky decision making about resources in men: evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognition. Ermer , Cosmides , Tooby By: Breana & Bryan. The Evolution of Decision Making. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:

of 24

Click here to load reader

Transcript

Relative status regulates risky decision making about resources in men: evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognition

Ermer, Cosmides, Tooby

By:Breana & BryanRelative status regulates risky decision making about resources in men:evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognitionThe Evolution of Decision MakingWhile many decisions that humans or other organisms make may be mathematically irrational, they can be ecologically rationalE.g. ambiguity aversion can be easily reversed by shifting the contextAuthors primarily explore two conceptsIf decision-making is fractured into separate systems governing separate domainsIf it is domain-specific, whether this has implications on a separation of motivation and cognition within domainsResource and Intrasexual CompetitionResources important to male-male but not female-female competition.A motivational system should regulate males willingness to take risks in a competitive environmentPresence of peers encourages men, but not women, to prefer high risk/high reward options (Daly & Wilson, 2001)Not only the presence of peers should matter, but also the sex and status of those peersThis should only apply to problems involving status-relevent resources

Risk-Sensitive Foraging TheoryWillingness to take a risk is regulated by an organisms needi.e. if safer choice doesnt meet organisms needs, risky choice seems more viableHas successfully predicted both animal foraging behavior (Real & Caraco, 1986) and human risky decision making (Rode et al., 1999)This theory becomes somewhat more complicated when applied to this researchRisk-Sensitive Foraging TheoryResource of interest: Social StatusSocial status is always relative to who is being comparedEveryone aspires to be high-statusHigh-status individuals should seek the low risk/low reward choiceEqual or lower-status individuals should seek the high risk/high reward choiceDominance TheoryMotivation to risk injury is regulated by the value of a resource to an individual, and by the risk of a competitor causing injury in pursuit of that resource.Individuals should be less willing to challenge higher status individuals, but should be motivated to challenge equal status individuals.Risk-Sensitive Foraging Theory vs Dominance TheoryBoth theories predict a high level of risk-taking when dealing with equal status individualsDominance theory predicts less risk-taking in the presence of higher status individuals, and more risk-taking with lower status individuals

Motivation for risk-takingOthers StatusRisk-Sensitive ForagingDominance

HigherHighLowEqualHighHighLowerLowLowPredictionsRelative social status will regulate mens risky decision making about resourcesThe presence of both resource opportunities and status rivals will result in one of two patternsHigher status competitors will increase risk-taking motivationOnly equal status competitors will increase risk-taking motivationRelative status should only regulate decisions within the domain of intrasexual competition Previous predictions will only apply to menStudy 1 - MethodsSubjects 94 (42 male) Psych studentsPresented with both a resource loss problem and a medical loss problemBoth contained a sure option and a risky optionSubjects told the experimenter was interested in perceptions of others decisionsCompetitors-the ones observing the videosCompetitor status based on the college they were from (e.g. Princeton-high status)Study 1- ResultsRelative social status significantly affected how often men chose the risky option on the resource loss problemDominance theory supported-men who thought they were being evaluated by status equals chose the high-risk/highgain option for acquiring resources significantly more often than men who thought their own status was lower or higher than that of their evaluatorsStudy 1- Results

*proportions of men choosing the risky option in the lower and higher status conditions did not differ significantly from one anotherStudy 1- ResultsRelative status had no effect on how often men chose the risky option on the control problem (medical treatments for preventing loss of life) L=64%, E=50%, H=57%Social status did not significantly affect how often women chose the risky option on either problem resource loss: L=35%, E=29%, H=33%medical loss: L=53%, E=47%, H=39%Study 2 - MethodsSubjects - 159 (101 male) Psych 101 studentsPresented with a similar resource gain problem and a medical gain problem, but also with two problems to explore the effect of personal involvement in the problemCompetitor status again based on college prestigeVirtually identical procedureStudy 2-Results

relative status significantly affected how often men chose the risky option on the resource loss problemStudy 2- ResultsStatus had no effect on men's choices in response to the control (medical loss) problem L=41%, E=65%, H=45%Status had no significant effect on men's choices on the medical gain problem L=50%, E=46%, H=74%Dominance theory supported-men chose the risky option more often in the equal status condition than in the lower or higher status conditionsStudy 2-ResultsRelative status had no effect on men's choices on the resource gain problemL=55%, E=52%, H=48%Difference between resource loss and gain problems is expectedcues of impending competition are necessary to activate a motivational system regulating competitive inclinations, and it is this system that uses relative status to regulate men's risky decision makingStudy 2- Results

Status effects for women were present in Experiment 2 (although not in Experiment 1)Does not fit any theory

Study 2- ResultsStatus did not significantly affect women's choices on the resource gain problem L=61%, E=25%, H=35%Social status did not significantly affect women's choices on either medical problemsframed in terms of loss of life: L=63%, E=40%, H=42%framed in terms of gains in longevity L=63%, E=50%, H=41%Follow-Up Studies2AWomen from study 2 given the resource gain/loss problemsAlso given an identical medical loss problem, but where friends lives were at stake2BMen given the medical loss with friends problem and a variant of the resource gain problemAlso given a third, dummy problem

2A- Results

Results suggest that experiment 2 represented noise rather than a real difference between populations2A-ResultsRelative status did not affect women's risky choices on the medical friends problem L=62%, E=46%, H=69%2B- ResultsMen's relative status did not affect their choices on the medical treatment problem L=58%, E=56%, H=33%The resource gain problem found no status effectsL=50%, E=44%, H=56%:ConclusionsSupports hypothesis that relative social status will regulate mens risky decision making about resourcesSupports hypothesis that equal status competitors will increase risk-taking motivation-losing ones resources would result in challenge by equal status competitorsSupports hypothesis that relative status should only regulate decisions within the domain of intrasexual competition- men's responses were produced by a motivational system specialized for regulating competitive interactions, which is equipped with its own, proprietary decision rules (this is cue regulated)Supports hypothesis that the previous predictions will only apply to men

DiscussionProblems with studyImagined situationsResults for women on Study 2

Questions?


Recommended