Abstract not found

Memory evolved to supply useful, timely information to the organism’s decision-making systems. Therefore, decision rules, multiple memory systems, and the search engines that link them should have coevolved to mesh in a coadapted, functionally interlocking way. This adaptationist perspective suggested the scope hypothesis: When a generalization is retrieved from semantic memory, episodic memories that are inconsistent with it should be retrieved in tandem to place boundary conditions on the scope of the generalization. Using a priming paradigm and a decision task involving person memory, the authors tested and confirmed this hypothesis. The results support the view that priming is an evolved adaptation. They further show that dissociations between memory systems are not—and should not be—absolute: Independence exists for some tasks but not others. Memory is a gift of nature, the ability of living organisms to retain and to utilize acquired information or knowledge.... Owners of biological memory systems are capable of behaving more appropriately at a later time because of their experiences at an earlier time, a feat not possible for organisms without memory. (Tulving, 1995a, p. 751) If there is one proposition on which all psychologists seem to

Evolution brought brains and minds into a world initially devoid of inteUlgent life. The evolutionary process designed the neural machinery that generates in-tehgent behavior, and important insights into how this machinery works can be gained by understanding how evolution constructs organisms. This is the ratio-nale that underlies research in evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology was founded on interloclang contributions from evolutionary biology, cognitive science, psychology, anthropology, and neuro-science. It reflects an attempt to think through, from first principles, how cur-rent knowledge from these various fields can be integrated into a single, consistent, sciennfic framework for the study of the mind and brain (Cosmides

Organizations are composed of stable, predominantly cooperative interactions or n-person exchanges. Humans have been engaging in n-person exchanges for a great enough period of evolutionary time that we appear to have evolved a distinct constellation of species-typical mechanisms specialized to solve the adaptive problems posed by this form of social interaction. These mechanisms appear to have been evolutionarily elaborated out of the cognitive infrastructure that initially evolved for dyadic exchange. Key adaptive problems that these mechanisms are designed to solve include coordination among individuals, and defense against exploitation by free riders. Multi-individual cooperation could not have been maintained over evolutionary time if free riders reliably benefited more than contributors to collective enterprises, and so outcompeted them. As a result, humans evolved mechanisms that implement an aversion to exploitation by free riding, and a strategy of conditional cooperation, supplemented by punitive sentiment towards free riders. Because of the design of these mechanisms, how free riding is treated is a central determinant of the survival and health of cooperative organizations. The mapping of the evolved psychology of n-party exchange cooperation may contribute to the construction of a principled theoretical foundation for the understanding of human behavior in organizations.

Over the last several years, researchers have begun to appreciate the ways in which questions of interest to personality and social psychologists can be addressed with neuropyschological case material (e.g., Klein & Kihlstrom, 1998; Klein, Loftus, &

THE THEORY OF evolution by natural selection has revolutionary implications for understanding the design of the human mind and brain, as Darwin himself was the first to recognize (Darwin, 1859). Indeed, a principled understanding of the network of causation that built the functional architecture of the human species offers the possibility of transforming the study of humanity into a natural science capable of precision and rapid progress. Yet, nearly a century and a half after The Origin of Species was published, the psychological, social, and behavioral sciences remain largely untouched by these implications, and many of these disciplines continue to be founded on assumptions evolutionarily informed researchers know to be false (Pinker, 2002; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Evolutionary psychology is the long-forestalled scientific attempt to assemble out of the disjointed, fragmentary, and mutually contradictory human disciplines a single, logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social, and behavioral sciences—a framework that not only incorporates the evolutionary sciences on a full and equal basis, but that systematically works out all of the revisions in existing belief and research practice that such a synthesis requires (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). The long-term scientific goal toward which evolutionary psychologists are working is the mapping of our universal human nature. By this, we mean the construction of a set of empirically validated, high-resolution models of the evolved mechanisms that collectively constitute universal human nature. Because the evolved function of a psychological mechanism is computational—to regulate behavior and the body adaptively in response to informational inputs—such a model consists of a description of the functional circuit logic or information

Trait judgments draw on two kinds of memory: (a) trait summaries, which provide information in the form of a generalization, and (b) memories of episodes in which a person behaved in ways that are relevant to the trait. According to the scope hypothesis (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 2000; Klein, Cosmides, Tooby, & Chance, in press), a trait summary is most useful when its scope is delimited (i.e., when it is accompanied by information specifying those situations in which it does not apply). Episodic memories that are inconsistent with a trait summary can serve this function, because they encode specific situations in which the generalization fails to predict the outcome. This suggests that judgment procedures should be designed to search for summary information in semantic memory and, upon retrieving it, also search for episodic memories that are inconsistent with that summary. This prediction has been tested and supported in previous experiments using artificial target persons (Babey, Queller, & Klein, 1998). Herein, we present the findings from two experiments supporting this prediction using trait judgments about real people for whom subjects have real world knowledge: the self (Experiment 1) and one’s mother (Experiment 2). The experiments also test a subtle prediction of the scope hypothesis: that a trait summary must exist and be retrieved for trait-inconsistent episodes to be primed. The results show that in the absence of a trait summary, trait-inconsistent episodes are not primed, but trait-consistent ones are.

Abstract not found

Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory?

Abstract not found