Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:56:02.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Consuming Instinct: What Darwinian consumption reveals about human nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2016

Gad Saad
Gad Saad*
Affiliation:
Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Canada H3G 1M8 [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Editor's Note. In this engaging talk given last February on a particularly cold and blustery day at Texas Tech University, Professor Gad Saad of Concordia University discusses his work in the area of evolutionary consumption. In making the case for understanding consumerism from a Darwinian perspective, Saad addresses several key tenets from his books The Consuming Instinct and The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption. In particular, Saad argues that: (1) many consumption acts can be mapped onto four key Darwinian modules (survival, mating, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism); and, (2) cultural products such as song lyrics and movie plotlines are fossils of the human mind that highlight a shared, biologically based human nature. In this wide-ranging inquiry, Saad summarizes several of his other empirical works, including the effects of conspicuous consumption on men's testosterone levels and how the ovulatory cycle in the human female influences consumption. Overall, Professor Saad contends that an infusion of evolutionary and biologically based perspectives into the discipline of consumer behavior and related government regulatory policies yields myriad benefits, notably greater consilience, more effective practices, an ethos of interdisciplinarity, and methodological pluralism.

Type
Perspectives
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Spring 2013 , pp. 58 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Saad, Gad, The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2011).Google Scholar
2. Saad, Gad, The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Saad, Gad and Vongas, John G., “The effect of conspicuous consumption on men's testosterone levels,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2009, 110: 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Saad, Gad and Stenstrom, Eric, “Calories, beauty, and ovulation: The effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 2012, 22: 102–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Brown, Donald E., Human Universals (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991).Google Scholar
6. Wilson, Edward O., On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).Google ScholarPubMed
7. Alexander, Gerianne M., Wilcox, Teresa, and Woods, Rebecca, “Sex differences in infants' visual interest in toys,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 2009, 38: 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Jadva, Vasanti, Hines, Melissa, and Golombok, Susan, “Infants' preferences for toys, colors, and shapes: Sex differences and similarities,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 2010, 39: 1261–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Berenbaum, Sheri A. and Hines, Melissa, “Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences,” Psychological Science 1992, 3: 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Alexander, Gerianne M. and Hines, Melissa, “Sex differences in response to children's toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus),” Evolution and Human Behavior, 2002, 23: 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hassett, Janice M., Siebert, Erin R., and Wallen, Kim, “Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children,” Hormones and Behavior 2008, 54: 359–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Hönekopp, Johannes and Thierfelder, Christine, “Relationships between digit ratio (2D:4D) and sex-typed play behavior in preschool children,” Personality and Individual Differences 2009, 47: 706–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John, “Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science,” Cognition 1994, 50: 41–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking Press, 2002).Google Scholar
15. Langlois, Judith H., Roggman, Lori A., and Reiser-Danner, Loretta A., “Infants' differential social responses to attractive and unattractive faces,” Developmental Psychology 1990, 26, 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Slater, Alan, Von der Schulenburg, Charlotte, Brown, Elizabeth, Badenoch, Marion, Butterworth, George, Parsons, Sonia, and Samuels, Curtis, “Newborn infants prefer attractive faces,” Infant Behavior & Development 1998, 21: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Mayr, Ernst, “Cause and effect in biology: Kinds of causes, predictability, and teleology are viewed by a practicing biologist,” Science 1961, 134: 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Scott-Phillips, Thomas C., Dickins, Thomas E., and West, Stuart A., “Evolutionary theory and the ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011, 6: 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Tinbergen, Niko, “On aims and methods of ethology,” Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 1963, 20: 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Flaxman, Samuel M. and Sherman, Paul W., “Morning sickness: Adaptive cause or nonadaptive consequence of embryo viability?” American Naturalist 2008, 172: 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Pepper, Gillian V. and Craig Roberts, S., “Rates of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and dietary characteristics across populations,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2006, 273, 2675–2679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Profet, Margie, “Pregnancy sickness as adaptation: A deterrent to maternal ingestion of teratogens,” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 327–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Sherman, Paul W. and Flaxman, Samuel M., “Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in an evolutionary perspective,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002, 186 (Suppl. 2): S190–S197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Flaxman, Samuel M. and Sherman, Paul W., “Morning sickness: A mechanism for protecting mother and embryo,” Quarterly Review of Biology 2000, 75: 113–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Hamilton, William D., “The genetical evolution of social behaviour (I and II),” Journal of Theoretical Biology 1964, 7: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Trivers, Robert L., “The evolution of reciprocal altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology 1971, 46: 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Kahn, Barbara E. and Wansink, Brian, “The influence of assortment structure on perceived variety and consumption quantities,” Journal of Consumer Research 2004, 30, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Rolls, Barbara J., Rowe, E.A., Rolls, E.T., Kingston, Breda, Megson, Angela, and Gunary, Rachel, “Variety in a meal enhances food intake in man,” Physiology & Behavior 1981, 26: 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Rolls, Barbara J., Rowe, E.A., and Rolls, E.T., “How sensory properties of foods affect human feeding behavior,” Physiology & Behavior 1982, 29: 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Restaurants & Institutions, Top 400 Restaurant Chains, 2008, 118(10): 30.Google Scholar
31. Billing, Jennifer and Sherman, Paul W., “Antimicrobial functions of spices: Why some like it hot,” Quarterly Review of Biology 1998, 73: 3–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Sherman, Paul W. and Billing, Jennifer, “Darwinian gastronomy: Why we use spices,” Bioscience 1999, 49: 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Henrich, Joseph and Henrich, Natalie, “The evolution of cultural adaptations: Fijian food taboos protect against dangerous marine toxins,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2010, 1701: 3715–3724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Ohtsubo, Yohsuke, “Adaptive ingredients against food spoilage in Japanese cuisine,” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 2009, 60: 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Sherman, Paul W. and Hash, Geoffrey A., “Why vegetable recipes are not very spicy,” Evolution and Human Behavior 2001, 22: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Falk, John H. and Balling, John D., “Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference,” Environment and Behavior 2010, 42: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Orians, Gordon H. and Heerwagen, Judith H., “Evolved responses to landscapes,” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 555–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Joye, Yannick, Poels, Karolien, and Willems, Kim, “‘Evolutionary store atmospherics’ — Designing with evolution in mind,” in Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences, Saad, Gad, ed. (Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Publishers, 2011), pp. 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Brown, William M., Cronk, Lee, Grochow, Keith, Jacobson, Amy, Karen Liu, C., Popovic, Zoran, and Trivers, Robert L., “Dance reveals symmetry especially in young men,” Nature, 2005, 438: 1148–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Dunn, Michael J. and Searle, Robert, “Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings,” British Journal of Psychology 2010, 101: 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Shuler, Gregory A. and McCord, David M., “Determinants of male attractiveness: ‘Hotness’ ratings as a function of perceived resources,” American Journal of Psychological Research 2010, 6: 10–23.Google Scholar
42. Stenstrom, Eric, Saad, Gad, Nepomuceno, Marcelo V., and Mendenhall, Zack, “Testosterone and domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D:4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, financial, and social risk-taking behaviors,” Personality and Individual Differences 2011, 51: 412–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. Durante, Kristina M., Griskevicius, Vladas, Hill, Sarah E., Perilloux, Carin, and Li, Norman P., “Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research 2011, 37: 921–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44. Haselton, Martie G., Mortezaie, Mina, Pillsworth, Elizabeth G., Bleske-Rechek, April, and Frederick, David A., “Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress,” Hormones and Behavior 2007, 51: 40–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Miller, Geoffrey, Tybur, Joshua M., and Jordan, Brent D., “Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: Economic evidence for human estrus?” Evolution and Human Behavior 2007, 28: 375–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Tifferet, Sigal, Saad, Gad, Meiri, Mali, and Ido, Nir, “Gift-giving at Israeli weddings as a function of genetic relatedness and maternal lineage,” North Eastern Evolutionary Psychology Society Conference, Plymouth State University, Plymouth, NH, April 27–29, 2012.Google Scholar
47. Saad, Gad and Gill, Tripat, “An evolutionary psychology perspective on gift giving among young adults,” Psychology & Marketing 2003, 20: 765–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Euler, Harald A. and Weitzel, Barbara, “Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy,” Human Nature 1996, 7: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Pashos, Alexander and McBurney, Donald H., “Kin relationships and the caregiving biases of grandparents, aunts, and uncles: A two-generational questionnaire study,” Human Nature 2008, 19: 311–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50. Daly, Martin and Wilson, Margo, “Whom are newborn babies said to resemble?” Ethology and Sociobiology 1982, 3: 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Hayward, Lisa S. and Rohwer, Sievert, “Sex differences in attitudes toward paternity testing,” Evolution and Human Behavior 2004, 25: 242–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Craig Roberts, S. and Havlicek, Jan, “Evolutionary psychology and perfume design,” in Applied Evolutionary Psychology, Craig Roberts, S., ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 330–348.Google Scholar
53. Haviland-Jones, Jeannette, Rosario, Holly Hale, Wilson, Patricia, and McGuire, Terry R., “An environmental approach to positive emotion: Flowers,” Evolutionary Psychology 2005, 3: 104–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Cronk, Lee and Dunham, Bria, “Amounts spent on engagement rings reflect aspects of male and female mate quality,” Human Nature 2007, 18: 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Barber, Nigel, “Women's dress fashions as a function of reproductive strategy,” Sex Roles 1999, 40: 459–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Hill, Russell A., Donovan, Sophie, and Koyama, Nicola F., “Female sexual advertisement reflects resource availability in twentieth-century UK society,” Human Nature 2005, 16: 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Townsend, John Marshall and Levy, Gary D., “Effects of potential partners' costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection,” Journal of Psychology 1990, 124: 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Hinsz, Verlin B., Matz, David C., and Patience, Rebecca A., “Does women's hair signal reproductive potential?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2001, 37: 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Mesko, Norbert and Bereczkei, Tames, “Hairstyle as an adaptive means of displaying phenotypic quality,” Human Nature 2004, 15: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Singh, Devendra and Randall, Patrick K., “Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist-hip ratio (WHR) and women's attractiveness,” Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 43: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Etcoff, Nancy L., Stock, Shannon, Haley, Lauren E., Vickery, Sarah A., and House, David M., “Cosmetics as a feature of the extended human phenotype: Modulation of the perception of biologically important facial signals,” PLos ONE 2011, 6: e25656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Russell, Richard, “A sex difference in facial contrast and its exaggeration by cosmetics,” Perception 2009, 38: 1211–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63. Samson, Nadine, Fink, Bernhard, and Matts, Paul J., “Visible skin condition and perception of human facial appearance,” International Journal of Cosmetic Science 2010, 32: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
64. Smith, Euclid O., “High heels and evolution: Natural selection, sexual selection and high heels,” Psychology, Evolution & Gender 1999, 1: 245–277.Google Scholar
65. Elliot, Andrew J. and Niesta, Daniela, “Romantic red: Red enhances men's attraction to women,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 95: 1150–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Milinski, Manfred and Wedekind, Claus, “Evidence for MHC-correlated perfume preferences in humans,” Behavioral Ecology 2001, 12: 140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
67. Havlicek, Jan and Craig Roberts, S., “MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review,” Psychoneuroendocrinology 2008, 34: 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Saad, Gad, “Nothing in popular culture makes sense except in the light of evolution,” Review of General Psychology 2012, 16: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69. Hobbs, Dawn R. and Gallup, Gordon G. Jr., “Songs as a medium for embedded reproductive messages,” Evolutionary Psychology 2011, 9: 390–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
70. Saad, Gad, “Song lyrics as windows to our evolved human nature,” in The Evolutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture, Vol. 2, Andrews, Alice and Carroll, Joseph, eds. (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2011), pp. 127–133.Google Scholar
71. Monson, Don A., “Why is la Belle Dame sans Merci? Evolutionary psychology and the troubadours,” Neophilologus 2011, 95: 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Cox, Anthony and Fisher, Maryanne, “The Texas billionaire's pregnant bride: An evolutionary interpretation of romance fiction titles,” Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 2009, 3: 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73. Henrich, Joseph, Boyd, Robert, and Richerson, Peter J., “The puzzle of monogamous marriage,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2012, 367: 657–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. Pound, Nicholas, “Male interest in visual cues of sperm competition risk,” Evolution and Human Behavior 2002, 23: 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75. Kilgallon, Sarah J. and Simmons, Leigh W., “Image content influences men's semen quality,” Biology Letters 2005, 1: 253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
76. Saad, Gad and Peng, Albert, “Applying Darwinian principles in designing effective intervention strategies: The case of sun tanning,” Psychology & Marketing 2006, 23: 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77. Wilson, Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (London: Abacus, 1998).Google Scholar
78. Sternberg, Robert J. and Grigorenko, Elena L., “Unified psychology,” American Psychologist 2001, 56: 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
79. Singh, Devendra, “Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness,” Neuroendocrinology Letters 2002, 23: 81–91.Google Scholar
80. Saad, Gad, “Advertised waist-to-hip ratios of online female escorts: An evolutionary perspective,” International Journal of e-Collaboration 2008, 4: 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81. Platek, Steven M. and Singh, Devendra, “Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men,” PLos ONE 2010, 5: e9042, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Dixson, Barnaby J., Grimshaw, Gina M., Linklater, Wayne L., and Dixson, Alan F., “Eye-tracking of men's preferences for waist-to-hip ratio and breast size of women,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 2011, 40: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83. Karremans, Johan C., Frankenhuis, Willem E., and Arons, Sander, “Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio,” Evolution and Human Behavior 2010, 31: 182–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
84. Garcia, Justin R., Geher, Glenn, Crosier, Benjamin, Saad, Gad, Gambacorta, Daniel, Johnsen, Laura, and Pranckitas, Elissa, “The interdisciplinarity of evolutionary approaches to human behavior: A key to survival in the Ivory archipelago,” Futures 2011, 43: 749–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85. Kenrick, Douglas T. and Simpson, Jeffrey A., “Why social psychology and evolutionary psychology need one another,” in Evolutionary Social Psychology, Simpson, Jeffrey A. and Kenrick, Douglas T., eds. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar