The Origin of Social Evaluation, Social Eavesdropping, Reputation Formation, Image Scoring or What You Will

Abstract

Social evaluation is a mental process that leverages the preference toward prosocial partners (positivity bias) against the avoidance of antisocial individuals (negativity bias) in a cooperative context. The phenomenon is well-known in humans, and recently comparative investigations looked at the possible evolutionary origins. So far social evaluation has been investigated mainly in non-human and human primates and dogs, however, there are few data on the presence of negativity/positivity bias in client-cleaner reef fish interactions as well. Unfortunately, the comparative approach to social evaluation is hindered by conceptual and procedural differences in experimental studies. By reviewing current knowledge on social evaluation in different species, we aim to point out that the capacity for social evaluation is not restricted to humans alone; however, its building blocks (negativity and positivity bias) may be more widespread separately. Due to its importance in survival, negativity bias likely to be widespread among animals; however, there has been less intensive selective pressure for the identification of prosocial companions, thus the latter ability may have emerged only in certain social species. We present a general framework and argue that negativity and positivity bias evolve independently and can be considered as social evaluation only if a unified behavior and cognitive system deals with both biases in concert.

Effects of the Presence and Behavior of In-Group and Out-Group Strangers on Moral Hypocrisy

“…Furthermore, studies have reported that people's moral identity is threatened when moral standards conflict with self-interest (Valdesolo and Desteno, 2007;Monin et al, 2009;O'Connor et al, 2020). To reduce cognitive conflict, people often adopt different approaches: when encountering moral standards, people usually avoid MH behaviors; when these behaviors are not avoided, they lower their moral standards to rationalize their hypocritical behavior (López-Pérez and Spiegelman, 2013;Kish-Gephart et al, 2014;Abdai and Miklósi, 2016). For this study, the moral behavior of strangers was undoubtedly the established moral standard.…”

Are Proselfs More Deceptive and Hypocritical? Social Image Concerns in Appearing Fair

“…This finding is consistent with previous studies that show proselfs tended to be fairer and more generous when their behaviors would be perceived by others ( Van Dijk et al, 2004 ). Proselfs mightuse apparent fairness as a strategy to avoid being perceived as unfair partners by others, since people usually use social evaluation to recognize prosocial and antisocial partners ( Abdai, 2016 ), or to avoid punishment andexclusion in the future ( Henrich et al, 2010 ; Gausel and Leach, 2011 ).…”

Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

“…For instance, babies already have a preference for agents who help, rather than hinder others (Hamlin et al, 2007). Such studies are also increasingly done with non-human animals, as reviewed in Abdai and Miklósi (2016). For instance, in a study modeled after Hamlin et al (2007), bonobos unexpectedly showed a preference for hinderers, rather than helpers (Krupenye and Hare, 2018).…”

“…For instance, in a study modeled after Hamlin et al (2007), bonobos unexpectedly showed a preference for hinderers, rather than helpers (Krupenye and Hare, 2018). Abdai and Miklósi (2016) point out that there are still considerable conceptual and procedural issues in animal social evaluation studies, in particular to clearly demonstrate positivity biases. Negativity biases may be taxonomically far more widespread than positivity biases, since the need to avoid harm is universal whereas the need to cooperate is less common.…”

“…Negativity biases may be taxonomically far more widespread than positivity biases, since the need to avoid harm is universal whereas the need to cooperate is less common. Evidence for positivity biases (which correspond to the third-party perspective on prosociality) appears present too in several non-human primate species but is more elusive due to methodological issues, including the use of humans rather than conspecifics as target individuals (see Abdai and Miklósi, 2016). …”