Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:24:57.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proper understanding of grounded procedures of separation needs a dual inheritance approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2021

Thomas W. Schubert Open the ORCID record for Thomas W. Schubert [Opens in a new window]  and
David J. Grüning Open the ORCID record for David J. Grüning [Opens in a new window]
Thomas W. Schubert
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Postboks 1094, 0317Oslo, [email protected]; https://www.sv.uio.no/psi/english/people/aca/thoschu/
David J. Grüning
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, 68159, Germany. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Grounded procedures of separation are conceptualized as a learned concept. The simultaneous cultural universality of the general idea and immense diversity of its implementations might be better understood through the lens of dual inheritance theories. By drawing on examples from developmental psychology and emotion theorizing, we argue that an innate blueprint might underlie learned implementations of cleansing that vary widely.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e23
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R. (2017). A different kind of animal: How culture transformed our species. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (2000). Complementarity theory: Why human social capacities evolved to require cultural complements. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. (2004). Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism. In Haslam, N. (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 61–146). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (2020). Kama muta: Discovering the connecting emotion. Routledge.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P., Seibt, B., & Schubert, T. (2019). The sudden devotion emotion: Kama muta and the cultural practices whose function is to evoke it. Emotion Review, 11(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917723167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.251541498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schubert, T. W. (2020). Grounding of rank: Embodiment, space, and magnitude. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 222–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.09.012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheehy-Skeffington, J., & Thomsen, L. (2020). Egalitarianism: Psychological and socio-ecological foundations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 146–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S. (2017). Core knowledge, language, and number. Language Learning and Development, 13(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2016.1263572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477–480. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zickfeld, J. H., Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., Blomster, J. K., Arriaga, P., Basabe, N., … Fiske, A. P. (2019). Kama muta: Conceptualizing and measuring the experience often labelled being moved across 19 nations and 15 languages. Emotion, 19(3), 402–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar