What is the expected human childhood? Insights from evolutionary anthropology

In psychological research, there are often assumptions about the conditions that children expect to encounter during their development. These assumptions shape prevailing ideas about the experiences that children are capable of adjusting to, and whether their responses are viewed as impairments or adaptations. Specifically, the expected childhood is often depicted as nurturing and safe, and characterized by high levels of caregiver investment. Here, we synthesize evidence from history, anthropology, and primatology to challenge this view. We integrate the findings of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cross-cultural investigations on three forms of threat (infanticide, violent conflict, and predation) and three forms of deprivation (social, cognitive, and nutritional) that children have faced throughout human evolution. Our results show that mean levels of threat and deprivation were higher than is typical in industrialized societies, and that our species has experienced much variation in the levels of these adversities across space and time. These conditions likely favored a high degree of phenotypic plasticity, or the ability to tailor development to different conditions. This body of evidence has implications for recognizing developmental adaptations to adversity, for cultural variation in responses to adverse experiences, and for definitions of adversity and deprivation as deviation from the expected human childhood.

Incivility as a Violation of Communication Norms—A Typology Based on Normative Expectations toward Political Communication

Research on incivility in political communication usually defines uncivil communication as a violation of established norms. Few studies, however, have specified these norms and corroborated them using relevant theoretical concepts. This article aims at strengthening the foundations of incivility research by analytically reconstructing the potential normative expectations of communication participants toward the behavior of others in offline and online political communication. We propose that these expectations can be considered as communication norms, which enable cooperative communication in political debates and conflicts. We use action theory, evolutionary anthropology, and linguistics to propose a norm concept that differentiates five communication norms: an information norm, a modality norm, a process norm, a relation norm, and a context norm. Drawing on these norms, we propose new definitions of incivility and civility. We also provide a comprehensive typology of norm violations that can be used as a heuristic for empirical research.

Moral origins and Christian ethics: An interdisciplinary approach in conversation with J. Wentzel van Huyssteen

Only a small number of theologians attempt to explore the critical and constructive contributions theology can make to evolutionary accounts of morality. J. Wentzel van Huyssteen can be considered a pioneer in the science and theology discourse, with a special interest in the origin of morality as part of his pursuit of a more profound notion of human uniqueness in science and theology. In this article, the origin of moral awareness and morality will be explored by combining a variety of perspectives, including evolutionary anthropology, in an attempt to gain a more responsible notion of ethics and clarify its relationship to Christian theology. The interdisciplinary approach adopted in this study, in conversation with Van Huyssteen, reveals the necessity of distinguishing between moral awareness and morality, that is, moral norms, judgements and conventions. Evolutionary explanations of our innate sense of morality cannot explain any of our moral judgements or justify the truth claims regarding our moral judgements. Gaining insights from philosophy and developmental psychology, the origin of moral norms, judgements and conventions are explored on a more interactive level of cultural evolution and niche construction. Finally, this article briefly explores whether Van Huyssteen’s post-foundational rethinking of the imago Dei can offer insights into how this bottom-up approach to moral awareness and morality relates to Christian theology and ethics.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article, in conversation with Wentzel van Huyssteen, explores the origin of moral awareness and morality and its relation to ethics. The interdisciplinary conversation covers the fields of evolutionary anthropology, developmental psychology, philosophy and theology within the contemporary science and theology discourses.

Making drawings speak through mathematical metrics

Figurative drawing is a skill that takes time to learn, and evolves during different childhood phases that begin with scribbling and end with representational drawing. Between these phases, it is difficult to assess when and how children demonstrate intentions and representativeness in their drawings. The marks produced are increasingly goal-oriented and efficient as the child’s skills progress from scribbles to figurative drawings. Pre-figurative activities provide an opportunity to focus on drawing processes. We applied fourteen metrics to two different datasets (N = 65 and N = 345) to better understand the intentional and representational processes behind drawing, and combined these metrics using principal component analysis (PCA) in different biologically significant dimensions. Three dimensions were identified: efficiency based on spatial metrics, diversity with colour metrics, and temporal sequentiality. The metrics at play in each dimension are similar for both datasets, and PCA explains 77% of the variance in both datasets. These analyses differentiate scribbles by children from those drawn by adults. The three dimensions highlighted by this study provide a better understanding of the emergence of intentions and representativeness in drawings. We have already discussed the perspectives of such findings in Comparative Psychology and Evolutionary Anthropology.

The University of Liverpool Evolutionary Anthropology Seminar Series: transcending the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic

This article describes the University of Liverpool Evolutionary Anthropology Webinar Series 2020-2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we adapted the long-running series into an openly accessible webinar programme, hosting speakers every week over Zoom from all over the world. We found that several benefits came from the reorganisation of the seminar series into a webinar series, including a more diverse demographic of both speakers and audience participants, as well as a dramatic increase in participant numbers due to the accessibility of online webinars.

Potential for Collaboration: Differences Between Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology as Scientific Disciplines

In a review of evolutionary analysis of human behavior, Alden Smith (2000) argues that evolutionary anthropology and evolutionary psychology should not be considered competing disciplines. If evolutionary anthropology and psychology were to become more collaborative, it would aid our understanding of human nature – regardless of the different assumptions and empirical methodology used by the two disciplines. The recent 10th anniversary of “The WEIRDEST people in the world” (Henrich et al, 2010) presents a good opportunity to assess the current state of the evolutionary social sciences. While scholars (e.g., Barrett, 2020) have provided thoughts on the future direction of the evolutionary social sciences, none have explicitly evaluated the degree to which the various subdisciplines within the evolutionary social sciences have moved toward greater collaboration over the past decade. The current study uses content analysis to systematically examine if the disciplines of evolutionary anthropology and psychology are becoming more collaborative by reporting the frequency of coauthored peer-reviewed papers published in Evolution and Human Behavior (EHB), the type of data, and the empirical methodology used in these papers. A total of 737 articles published in EHB between 2009 and 2020 were coded, and no evidence of increased frequency of anthropologist and psychologist collaborations was found. While evolutionary anthropologists and psychologists did not report different types of data or topics of interest, the methods for hypothesis testing were different. I discuss limitations for the current content analysis and review suggested future steps for unification.