No abstract

In recent years, evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists have debated whether ethnic markers have evolved to solve adaptive problems related to interpersonal coordination or to interpersonal cooperation. In the present study, we add to this debate by exploring how individuals living in a modern society utilize the accents of unfamiliar individuals to make social decisions in hypothetical economic games that measure interpersonal trust, generosity, and coordination. A total of 4603 Danish participants completed a verbal-guise study administered over the Internet. Participants listened to four speakers (two local and two nonlocal) and played a hypothetical Dictator Game, Trust Game, and Coordination Game with each of them. The results showed that participants had greater faith in coordinating successfully with local speakers than with nonlocal speakers. The coordination effect was strong for individuals living in the same city as the particular speakers and weakened as the geographical distance between the participants and the speakers grew. Conversely, the results showed that participants were not more generous toward or more trusting of local speakers compared with nonlocal speakers. Taken together, the results suggest that humans utilize ethnic markers of unfamiliar individuals to coordinate behavior rather than to cooperate.

Th is study examines the principles we apply, when people, objects and animals are to be organized in relation to other representatives of their kind. Most cross-cultural studies on personal space focus on cultural diff erences, but here we look for proxetics (universals) as well as proxemics (cultural diff erences). 793 subjects from six countries (Greenland, Finland, Denmark, Italy, India and Cameroon) situated in four diff erent climate zones are tested with a projective simulation measure (the 'IPROX'). A number of cross-cultural similarities are documented, and it is suggested that six of these are examples of high-level universals in the sense of Norenzayan and Heine (2005). But spacing also diff ers, and participants from Greenland, Finland, and Denmark systematically keep a larger interpersonal distance than subjects from Italy, India and Cameroon, which confi rms the classic diff erence between southern 'contact-cultures' and northern 'low-contact cultures'. It is documented how personal space shrinks or expands depending on context and depending on whether a person occupies a territory or arrives at a territory occupied by somebody else. Personal space may even 'rub off ' on a person's belongings, and this opens up for a whole new area of spatial relations not studied before.

No abstract

A fetish is a specific emotionally loaded object, body part, or situation that draws our attention and desire, and sexual fetishism is the sexual arousal that a person experiences when in contact with such a loaded object. Until now, psychology has had trouble understanding the distinctive lust objects and the orchestration of urges in the world of fetishism, so fetishism has therefore fallen into the category of perversions and abnormal behavior. In this study, fetishism is moved to the field of aesthetics, and a new theory is presented: Fetishism is the attraction to certain species-specific key stimuli that are perceived as especially beautiful and exciting. A topic or an object that contains important key stimuli automatically becomes a power object or a fetish. Therefore, we have to look into the innate sensibilities on which our aesthetics are based and into the micro-processes of the aesthetic impulse to understand why something captivates and fascinates us in a fetishist way.

The sacrifice is a ritualized central structure in religious practice worldwide, but from a psychological point of view it may be much more than that. On the basis of crosscultural, comparative, and experimental data, where 162 strangers are arranged to meet in twos without knowing that their interaction is being observed, it is argued that the sacrifice is not first and foremost a religious concept, let alone a behavioural structure primarily related to the man-god relation, but rather a key factor in man's sociality and a general evolutionary interaction unit based on a cognitive reciprocity-programme well known in animal life, from sperm whales and vampire bats to higher primates and ourselves. Furthermore, it is suggested that in our species the religious sacrifice becomes a ritualized sacred action, because this act symbolically highlights the natural reciprocity relations that have to prevail among men, if a society is to exist at all. Unlike all other species man practice complex symbolic behaviours such as art, cult, and rite, and in doing so we are capable of sanctifying particular parts of our surroundings. Persons performing specific roles, or

All over the world, humans (Homo sapiens) display resource-sharing behavior, and common patterns of sharing seem to exist across cultures. Humans are not the only primates to share, and observations from the wild have long documented food sharing behavior in our closest phylogenetic relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and bonobos (Pan paniscus). However, few controlled studies have been made in which groups of Pan are introduced to food items that may be shared or monopolized by a first food possessor, and very few studies have examined what happens to these sharing patterns if the food in question is a highly attractive, monopolizable food source. The one study to date to include food quality as the independent variable used different types of food as high- and low-value items, making differences in food divisibility and size potentially confounding factors. It was the aim of the present study to examine the sharing behavior of groups of captive chimpanzees and bonobos when introducing the same type of food (branches) manipulated to be of 2 different degrees of desirability (with or without syrup). Results showed that the large majority of food transfers in both species came about as sharing in which group members were allowed to cofeed or remove food from the stock of the food possessor, and the introduction of high-value food resulted in more sharing, not less. Food sharing behavior differed between species in that chimpanzees displayed significantly more begging behavior than bonobos. Bonobos, instead, engaged in sexual invitations, which the chimpanzees never did. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract