Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A comprehensive evolutionary framework for understand- adaptations are built by suites of genes whose overall
ing the maintenance of heritable behavioral variation in functioning tends to be disrupted by variation. Because of
humans is yet to be developed. Some evolutionary psychol- the winnowing nature of selection, the existence of herita-
ogists have argued that heritable variation will not be ble variation in a trait is argued to be evidence for a trait’s
found in important, fitness-relevant characteristics because not having been under natural selection: “Heritable varia-
of the winnowing effect of natural selection. This article tion in a trait generally signals a lack of adaptive signifi-
propounds the opposite view. Heritable variation is ubiq- cance” (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990, p. 38, italics in
uitous in all species, and there are a number of frameworks original).
for understanding its persistence. The author argues that Tooby and Cosmides (1992) thus suggested that most
each of the Big Five dimensions of human personality can of the genetic variation between human individuals is neu-
be seen as the result of a trade-off between different fitness tral or functionally superficial. They did, however, concede
costs and benefits. As there is no unconditionally optimal a possible role for “some thin films” of functionally rele-
value of these trade-offs, it is to be expected that genetic vant heritable interindividual differences (Tooby & Cos-
diversity will be retained in the population. mides, 1992, p. 80). The possible sources of these thin
Keywords: personality, evolutionary psychology, five-fac- films—frequency-dependent selection and selective re-
tor model sponses to local ecological conditions—are discussed in
greater detail below. What is relevant for the present pur-
I n recent years, there has been an extraordinary growth poses is the low priority given to understanding these thin
of interest in giving ultimate, evolutionary explana- films relative to the task of describing and explaining the
tions for psychological phenomena alongside the prox- universal psychological mechanisms that humans undoubt-
imate, mechanistic explanations that are psychology’s tra- edly all share.
ditional fare (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992; Buss,
1995). The logic of ultimate explanations is that for psy- Personality Variation and
chological mechanisms and behavioral tendencies to have Evolutionary Psychology
become and remain prevalent, they must serve or have
served some fitness-enhancing function. The explanatory There has however, been a response from researchers seek-
program of evolutionary psychology has concentrated ing to marry differential and evolutionary psychology in a
strongly on human universals, such as jealousy, sexual way that gives greater weight to the study of individual
attraction, and reasoning about social exchange (Buss, differences (see, e.g., Buss, 1991; Buss & Greiling, 1999;
1989; Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Cos- Figueredo et al., 2005; Gangestad & Simpson, 1990; Mac-
mides, 1989). The focus has been on the central tendency Donald, 1995; Nettle, 2005). David Buss made an early
of the psychology of these domains, rather than the ob- contribution to this literature by enumerating possible
served variation, and explanation has been in terms of sources of functionally important interindividual variation
adaptations shared by all individuals. (Buss, 1991; see also Buss & Greiling, 1999). Most of
Indeed, some evolutionary psychologists have implied these are mechanisms that do not rely on heritable variation
that one should not expect there to be any important vari- in psychological mechanisms, for example, enduring situ-
ation in traits that have a history of selection. For example, ational evocation, or calibration by early life events, or
Tooby and Cosmides (1992) argued that “human genetic calibration of behavior by the size or state of the individual.
variation . . . is overwhelmingly sequestered into function- However, Buss also discussed the possibility that there are
ally superficial biochemical differences, leaving our com- equally adaptive alternative behavioral strategies underlain
plex functional design universal and species typical” (p. by genetic polymorphisms, or continua of reactivity of
25). The reason invoked for this assertion is that natural
selection, which is a winnowing procedure, should, if there
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Daniel
are no counteracting forces, eventually remove all but the Nettle, Evolution and Behaviour Research Group, Division of Psychol-
highest-fitness variant at a particular locus (Fisher, 1930; ogy, Henry Wellcome Building, University of Newcastle, Newcastle NE2
Tooby & Cosmides, 1990), especially because complex 4HH, United Kingdom. E-mail: daniel.nettle@ncl.ac.uk
Table 1
Summary of Hypothesized Fitness Benefits and Costs of Increasing Levels of Each of the Big Five Personality
Dimensions
Domain Benefits Costs
Extraversion Mating success; social allies; exploration of Physical risks; family stability
environment
Neuroticism Vigilance to dangers; striving and competitiveness Stress and depression, with
interpersonal and health
consequences
Openness Creativity, with effect on attractiveness Unusual beliefs; psychosis
Conscientiousness Attention to long-term fitness benefits; life expectancy Missing of immediate fitness gains;
and desirable social qualities obsessionality; rigidity
Agreeableness Attention to mental states of others; harmonious Subject to social cheating; failure to
interpersonal relationships; valued coalitional maximize selfish advantage
partner