Toward a Cultural Evolutionary Psychology: Why the Evolutionary Approach does not Imply Reductionism or Determinism

A close look at sociality in DSM criteria

PURPOSE

The importance of sociality in psychology and psychotherapy is quite undisputed; however, this construct risks being underestimated in psychiatric nosography. The aim of the review was to assess the relevance of sociality in DSM 5 criteria.

METHOD

Sociality-laden criteria of 192 selected DSM categories have been identified through a textual grid. Second, the criteria have been classified into 6 categories, i.e., (1) Affiliation and Attachment (AA), (2) Social Communication (SC), (3) Perception and Understanding of Others (PUO), (4) Culture, (5) Clinical Significance Criterion (CSC) (6), and No Specific Construct (NSC).

RESULTS

13% of all mental disorders mention AA in their criteria. 8.8% of all mental disorders mention SC; 8.8% of all mental disorders mention PUO in their criteria. 15% of all mental disorders mention culture in their criteria (exclusively ex negativo though). 40% of mental disorders mention non-specific sociality (NSC) in their criteria. CSC is mentioned in 85% of mental disorders. Personality disorders have the highest "concentration" of sociality mentions throughout the DSM categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results suggest that DSM criteria offer a confused account of sociality. We believe that the descriptive approach is the underlying reason. We suggest that in the long run a theory-laden approach to sociality, informed by evolutionary insights about motivations, could be of help.

Strategies of prosociality: Comparing Nordic and Slavonic altruism toward Ukrainian refugees

Nordic high-trust societies are underpinned by prosociality, a term denoting cooperation and working for the good of others. State-funded voluntarism provides opportunities for altruism that appears to contribute to the Nordics' exceptional level of well-being. Altruists are rewarded by a warm, lasting affect that enhances personal well-being, thus motivating further prosociality. Humanity's evolutionary past coded into us a desire to strengthen our community by helping those in need-a biocultural drive that is corrupted when authoritarian regimes enforce unselfish behavior on disempowered populations. Such coercive altruism has a line of adverse long-term consequences for communal functionality and individual flourishing. Our study examines how sociocultural context influences people's prosocial strategies, and how sharing insights and practices from democratic and authoritarian traditions can lead to new, revitalized forms of altruism. Our in-depth interviews (n = 32) of Nordic and Slavonic helpers of Ukrainian refugees in Norway (1) illuminate the impact of culture and memory on altruistic practices, (2) define points of tension between systemic and anti-systemic modes of prosociality, and (3) identify cross-cultural interactions that generate trust, well-being, and social innovation. The post-communist experience of the Slavonic informants motivated anti-systemic altruism, which highlights spontaneity, improvisation, and occasional rule breaking. Norwegian systemic altruism is based on trust, efficacy, and rule-following. Our evolutionary approach to cultural psychology substantiates how important it is for development and immigration policies to align our knowledge of human nature with insights into the workings of cultural legacies. A better understanding of the biocultural mainsprings of altruism could be of crucial importance in our era of reemerging authoritarianism and increasing migration.

What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Culture? There is a Missing Link Between the Natural and the Social Sciences

The article by Wells is a chance to ponder on the different conceptions of culture endorsed by the natural sciences and by the social sciences. The standard definition of culture among biologists/natural scientists usually focuses on transmission of behaviors (e.g. "tradition of socially learned behaviors"), while on the other hand anthropologists and social scientists focus more on the symbolic aspect of culture (e.g."webs of significance"). This differential emphasis likely reflects a difference in ontology (what culture is) and in its epistemology (how it can be studied). Natural scientists typically prefer to focus on how cultural traits change quantitatively, while social scientists are much more focused with the process of symbolic interpretation, which typically involves the ability to account for meaning and sense-making (thus, it is more qualitative-grounded). These two conceptions of culture are both valid but incomplete, if they do not take into account the counterpart. The scientific conundrum that has to be solved is how these two different onto-epistemologies can be successfully linked together. A speculative hypothesis is put forward.