Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:36:48.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tinbergen's “four questions” provides a formal framework for a more complete understanding of prosocial biases in favour of attractive people

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Ian D. Stephen ,
Darren Burke  and
Danielle Sulikowski
Ian D. Stephen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia. [email protected]://humansciences.mq.edu.au/psychology/psychology_staff/psychology_academic_staff/ian_stephen ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia. http://evolutionarycognition.orghttp://www.comparativecognition.com Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie University, North Ryde, New South Wales 2109, Australia.
Darren Burke
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Ourimbah, New South Wales 2258, Australia. [email protected]
Danielle Sulikowski
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales 2795, Australia. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We adopt Tinbergen's (1963) “four questions” approach to strengthen the criticism by Maestripieri et al. of the non-evolutionary accounts of favouritism toward attractive individuals, by showing which levels of explanation are lacking in these accounts. We also use this approach to propose ways in which the evolutionary account may be extended and strengthened.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e44
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Hemelrijk, C. K., Meier, C. & Martin, R. D. (1999) “Friendship” for fitness in chimpanzees? Animal Behaviour 58:1223–29.Google ScholarPubMed
Hemelrijk, C. K., van Laere, G. J. & van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. (1992) Sexual exchange relationships in captive chimpanzees? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 30:269–75.Google Scholar
Kanazawa, S. (2011) Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence 39:7–14.Google Scholar
Nishida, T. (1989) Social interactions between resident and immigrant female chimpanzees. In: Understanding chimpanzees, ed. Heltne, P. G. & Marquardt, L. A.. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I., Burt, M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A. & Edwards, R. (1999) Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior 20:295–307.Google Scholar
Stephen, I. D. & Tan, K. W. (2015) Healthy body, healthy face? Evolutionary approaches to health perception. In: Culture and cognition: A collection of critical essays, ed. Sheppard, E. & Haque, S.. Peter Lang International.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963) On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 20:410–33.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2014) Darwin's forgotten idea: The social essence of sexual selection. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 46:501–508.Google Scholar