Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Social Reasoning Affected by Rank (Mealey, Daood, Krage, 1996)

  • Raoul Bell
  • Axel Buchner
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2631-1

Synonyms

Definition

The influence of the social status of a person within a group or society on cheater detection and memory for cheaters.

Introduction

Most human societies and primate groups are pervaded by social dominance hierarchies. It is therefore plausible to assume that our cognitive system is shaped by selective pressures that require the individuals to adapt to the hierarchical organization of these social environments. Specifically, dominance theory (Cummins 1998, 1999, 2005) implies that the reasoning about social norms is affected by social rank. This hypothesis seems quite reasonable considering that social dominance hierarchies can be defined as a set of explicit or implicit social norms that define who is allowed to gain access to valuable resources (such as mates or food) and who is not. A social dominance hierarchy can only be maintained if the individuals in the group...

Keywords

Source Memory Social Rank Dictator Game Social Reasoning Norm Violation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barclay, P., & Lalumière, M. L. (2006). Do people differentially remember cheaters? Human Nature, 17, 98–113. doi:10.1007/s12110-006-1022-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2012). How adaptive is memory for cheaters? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 403–408. doi:10.1177/0963721412458525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchner, A., Bell, R., Mehl, B., & Musch, J. (2009). No enhanced recognition memory, but better source memory for faces of cheaters. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 212–224. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 584–627). Hoboken: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470939376.ch20.Google Scholar
  5. Cummins, D. D. (1998). Social norms and other minds: The evolutionary roots of higher cognition. In D. D. Cummins & C. A. Allen (Eds.), The evolution of mind (pp. 30–50). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, D. D. (1999). Cheater detection is modified by social rank: The impact of dominance on the evolution of cognitive functions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 229–248. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138%2899%2900008-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cummins, D. D. (2005). Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 676–697). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. D. (2001). Reciprocity in ranked relationships: Does social structure influence social reasoning? Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 149–270. doi:10.1023/A:1020572212265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. (2007). Are perceptions of fairness relationship-specific? The case of noblesse oblige. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 60, 16–31. doi:10.1080/17470210600577266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiddick, L., Cummins, D. D., Janicki, M., Lee, S., & Erlich, N. (2013). A cross-cultural study of noblesse oblige in economic decision-making. Human Nature, 24, 318–335. doi:10.1007/s12110-013-9169-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Francis, G. (2012). Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 1587. doi:10.1073/pnas.1203591109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G., & Hug, K. (1992). Domain-specific reasoning: Social contracts, cheating, and perspective change. Cognition, 43, 127–171. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90060-U.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Holyoak, K. J., & Cheng, P. W. (1995). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289–313. doi:10.1080/13546789508251504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krupka, E. L., & Weber, R. A. (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 495–524. doi:10.1111/jeea.12006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mealey, L., Daood, C., & Krage, M. (1996). Enhanced memory for faces of cheaters. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 119–128. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00131-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mehl, B., & Buchner, A. (2008). No enhanced memory for faces of cheaters. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 35–41. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cote, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 4086–4091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1118373109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wason, P. C. (1968). Reasoning about a rule. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 273–281. doi:10.1080/14640746808400161.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Heinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany