|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
International Journal of Regional, Rural and Remote Law and Policy |
International Journal of Regional, Rural and Remote (RRR) Law and Policy
[ISSN: 1839-745X]
[Formerly known as International Journal of Rural Law and Policy]
Human Nature vs. Food System Transitions?
Anu Lähteenmäki-Uutela[1]
Evolutionary psychology explains the origins and operations of human emotions, biases and behavioral tendencies. These species-specific features impact how consumers, citizens, business leaders, and politicians see food and food systems. Today, a major transition towards more sustainable food systems is necessary: we need to change the way we are producing and consuming food. Some of our evolved tendencies may hinder sustainability transitions, however. Our moral intuitions are not very well evolved to solve global environmental problems or issues of intergenerational justice. Transparency is vital for any moral emotions to function: we must see and feel food system problems in order to feel guilt, which is not always possible in modern food supply chains. Food systems possess a specific challenge: the survival motive may make the worst food options taste the best. Homo sapiens is an omnivore, and new nutrition sources make us curious and cautious at the same time. Disgust and neophobia can be overcome by exposure and example. Recognizing our evolutionary tendencies may empower us at individual level and aid policy making at societal level. Humans as legislators may act more morally than humans as consumers. This is because law-making is a public, deliberated act and because those in power tend to be angrier.
1. Introduction: Evolutionary Psychology and the Human Mind
Evolutionary psychology is a psychological metatheory and discipline interested in the biological evolution of the human mind and behavior[2]. It investigates humans as a species that has developed certain cognitive models and emotions through Darwinian selection. The theory can be it can be applied to all phenomena related to human behavior. The difference between proximate and ultimate explanations of human behavior is central to evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology studies the ultimate motives[3] and explains why, at species level, the human shows tendencies towards specific behaviors. Ultimate motives can also be called fundamental motives[4]. Garcia and Saad list survival, reproduction/mating, kin selection (taking care of family), and reciprocity (being a valued member of the tribe) as the four evolutionary relevant domains.[5] Saad calls these “the four basal Darwinian modules”.[6]
Homo sapiens is an omnivore with a large brain that needs a lot of calories and a varied diet. Food choice is a task we face several times in one day: we must continuously make decisions on what to eat and what not to eat. Currently, our ways of eating cannot be considered sustainable: our food production and consumption systems are major causes for biodiversity loss and climate change. Human rights are violated in food supply chains, and factory farms grow bigger and bigger. Systemic transitions towards low-carbon circular systems and alternatives to animal-based proteins are urgently needed.[7]
The presumption here is that our evolved psychological modules have an impact on which foods we tend to see as preferable vs. unpreferable or good vs. bad. In addition to the obvious link between food choice and survival, the reciprocity module is relevant as humans look for a better social conscience and reputation through food choice and broader food system governance. The ultimate human motives shape our attitudes and behavior not only as consumers or voters but also as social media influencers, business leaders, activists, administrators, and legislators. It is important to notice that some of our evolved tendencies may work against or even hinder the very necessary sustainability transitions. Recognizing our evolutionary tendencies may empower us at individual level and aid policy making at societal level. This paper seeks to answer the following research question:
- how do the evolved structures of the human mind impact food system transitions?
Chapter 2 is food system-specific, studying how the survival motive and food-related emotions or tendencies shape Homo sapiens behavior. Chapter 3 discusses human morality and the role of moral emotions in solving food system challenges. Chapter 3 applies to any sustainability issue where humans must act to take moral responsibility over global problems.
2. Survival and Food Choice
Cosmides and Tooby say at our hunter-gatherer ancestors were “on a camping trip that lasted a lifetime”.[8] Camping life involved food choices and moral choices, and food and morality also often combined. Food for humans is about gathering, hunting and eating together. The obvious evolutionary motive for food choice is survival. Food, diets, and metabolism form an important part of our evolution. A crucial difference between humans and other primates is our large brain. The energy demands of brain and other neural tissues are extremely high. We have relatively small gastrointestinal tracts and small muscles. This means we are adapted to diets high in energy and nutrients easy to digest.[9]
For survival, a human must avoid potentially dangerous objects. The emotion of disgust evolved primarily to protect us from disease. Rotten food is one of the most basic threats to survival. Taste, smell and texture are relevant in determining whether a food will be good for the eater.[10] Spoiled foods smell, look and feel disgusting. Disgust is an emotional reaction that activates the parasympathetic nervous system, generates feelings of nausea and a characteristic facial expression, and results in the behavioral avoidance of a stimulus.[11] It is believed that disgust developed when humans encountered new survival pressures when their diets became more omnivorous or when they began living in dense groups[12]. We have a disgust memory bias: we remember disgust-eliciting images even better than fear-eliciting ones.[13] Obviously but regrettably, humans have not evolved to detect microplastics, pesticide residues, growth hormones or antibiotic residues in food.
Females report higher disgust sensitivity than males, and disgust sensitivity declines over the life course.[14] Due to double or even triple risk (for self and/or fetus and/or breastfed child), women are on average more risk-aversive (neophobic) with novel foods than men. For women, taking food risks may signal inferior parental capacity in the arena of intrasexual competition and be disadvantageous to the genes of offspring.[15] Food choice is thus also related to reproduction and kin selection motives, in addition to survival. If women were willing to opt for extra safety also as food legislators, the share of women in parliament might impact food law content. Young men are the most risk-seeking humans. High levels of testosterone drive males towards acts that may lead to an increase in status, which is vital for reproductive success.[16] Males can signal immune system strength and adventurous character through courageous food choices, thereby increasing their mating value. As males become fathers, their testosterone levels drop and their attitude towards risk changes, as their offspring would suffer from excessive risk-taking.[17]
Our brains combine cues from the physical and social environment with our internal states and categorize nature into edible and inedible. If a high probability of pathogen presence is combined with a low expected value of eating, a human will not eat. Humans are curious of new foods, but they are suspicious at the same time.[18] Short-term changes in nutritional state do not make humans ignore pathogen cues, but hunger may increase the willingness to eat novel foods.[19] Although food-based disease avoidance is not a social goal as such, it is more effectively attained in cooperation with others. According to Veeck, the social setting mitigates the neophobic and neophilic tendencies of individuals.[20] A norm or habit is a strong cue of edibility, and witnessing others eat and survive has high information value as a reliable signal of the food being safe. The survival motive favors doing what everyone else does, and how everything has been done before. Human prefer foods they consumed as children, producing nostalgic preferences (if one survived through childhood, it is reliable evidence on the benefits of the diet). When it comes to consumption of novel foods at individual level or regulation of novel foods at societal level, Homo sapiens is skeptical. Why take the risk of introducing new foods when we have this assortment available and proven non-fatal? Not even traditional consumption of food by some other tribes is enough evidence for the nonexistence of risks.
Because one cannot start to analyze the options for food choice from scratch four-five times a day, we employ heuristics and cues to simplify it. One central heuristic is eating what one always eats. Copying others is another. Status quo bias in general is an important phenomenon in society: the human is afraid of change.[21] To overcome disgust, fear and suspicion, we follow the majority, or we follow the opinion leader. People’s brains are adapted into selective social learning.[22] Whenever we see a person of high status doing something, it is a cue that this behavior could be positive as regards our own reproductive fitness. The same is true whenever we see many people around us behaving in a certain manner (called bandwagoning in behavioral economics).
Healthy eating is today difficult because of the human preference for high-energy foods combined with their overwhelming availability and affordability. The good taste of high-calory foods has caused the obesity epidemic, as current environments are too full of fast and easy energy. Plenty of high-energy food available is a positive cue for the human brain: it means life is looking good. Eating plenty of food makes a person feel good because it adds survival chances. For survival, Homo sapiens prefers high-calory foods and variable diets. Humans tend to remember the locations of the outlets of high-calory foods.[23] Humans use color as a signal of food energy content and prefer varied meals with several different colors. For females in reproductive age, food preferences vary across the menstrual cycle.[24]
Cues about the harshness of the environment make a human ingest more calories.[25] People eat to relieve negative feelings such as anger, loneliness, boredom, and depression,[26] and shame[27]. The object of a food craving is usually an energy-intensive food.[28] Eating the craved food eases tension, improves mood, and adds energy.[29] A food craving is difficult to resist because of its importance to our ancestors’ survival. It is counterintuitive for human psychology to prohibit or restrict the availability of high-energy foods.
3. Morality and Food System Transitions
Even though food and morality have always linked, food choice is a moral choice today more than ever. In explaining morality, helping and pro-social behavior in evolutionary terms, the concepts of inclusive fitness,[30] and reciprocal altruism[31] are often referred to. Inclusive fitness is related to family, to sharing the same genes. Hamilton’s idea of inclusive fitness is defined as an organism’s aim to deliver its genes to the next generation and maximizing the probability of the next generation to survive and reproduce.[32] Maximizing gene success may typically mean favoring one’s offspring before oneself. The impacts of psychological features produced by inclusive fitness extend to siblings, nieces or nephews, grandchildren and even to cousins: the more genetic similarity, the more helping.
Trivers’ theory of reciprocal altruism explains why humans also help non-relatives.[33] The theory suggests that an organism’s best chance to improve its inclusive fitness is often to act reciprocally towards others. Saad[34] describes the fitness advantage of reciprocal behavior as an “insurance policy against starvation”: “I’ll share my food with your family now, and you’ll reciprocate at a future date when my family requires caloric help.” Being as good a collaborator as the next person is integral for a social animal, being a punisher is a sign of being group-focused, and favoring unfairness is bad for reputation. The central contribution of evolutionary theory on morality is that all unselfish behavior is motivated by the ultimate motive to improve one’s own inclusive fitness: people behave ethically towards non-relatives because that will benefit their genes. The ultimate human motive need not be consciously recognized: the proximate motive for helping is typically the affection and duty felt towards others.
A major issue for any sustainability transition is that sustainable, resource-saving and moral behavior on a global scale is not adaptive behavior for humans[35]. Our ‘environment of evolutionary adaptation’[36] was very different from our modern living environment. For most of our evolutionary history we lived in tribes, each consisting of up to 150 individuals,[37] which shaped our moral perceptions and made our sense of ethics very limited. In other words, human nature has not adapted to feel morally responsible for the whole globe and its 8 billion people. Further, due to our tribal nature, we have a strong tendency towards bi-polar morality: we distinguish between in-group and out-group. In ancestral environments, it was not fitness-enhancing to feel the pain of the competing tribe, and it would have been particularly detrimental to spend resources on helping distant people one will never meet. Exploiting out-groups can make perfect evolutionary sense, while exploiting one’s relatives and in-group typically does not. What is more, environmental problems as we know them did not exist in ancestral times. We have evolved a psychology of reaping the natural resources and then moving to another place, which is highly incompatible with the current challenge of staying within the planetary boundaries.[38] Our brain is not adapted to think about long-term future. In an uncertain environment, hoarding aided surviving the next winter. The fitness benefits of harvesting and storing more resources than the direct competitors are multiple: such a tendency can attract mates, friends, and allies.
In responsible (food) consumption, i.e. efforts to help distant (food system) actors or to protect the environment or the animals, direct reciprocity rewards are rare. The consumer cannot be paid back by pineapple farmers or fishermen operating in the supply chains, and neither can a politician who votes for supply chain due diligence laws. From the evolutionary perspective, moral deeds towards strangers are related to reputation.[39] Humans act morally and call for moral acts towards strangers, because reputation helped our ancestors survive and reproduce. The phenomenon is called ‘indirect reciprocity’: the reputation achieved through responsible activities improves one’s fitness, because as a reciprocal species, humans favor fair and nice actors.[40] Pro-social actors increase in status inside the tribe. In the competition over reputation and prestige, we compete over who can act the most morally.[41] Humans are more moral when someone is watching, and sustainable behavior is typically not concealed.[42] Griskevicius et al,[43] have suggested the term conspicuous conservation to illustrate that the ultimate motive for environmental-friendly behavior is related to reputation. The objective goodness of specific acts is not relevant for reputation: the sociocultural setting will determine whether a specific (food-related) behavior improves one’s reputation, e.g. whether organic food consumption is expected and rewarded or not.[44] What matters is to live up to the expectations of important others and to show it to them. Benefactors generally want to display their self-sacrificing and status-enhancing acts clearly.[45] The difference between saying (and believing) in one’s responsibility and acting responsibly is studied by Janssen and Vanhamme as the CSR consumer paradox: while most consumers say they want to buy responsible products, this is not seen in purchasing behavior.[46] The gap is explained by the lack of transparency in consumption decisions: in the supermarket, no-one is watching. The gap is also explained by the human sense of justice being ‘slanted toward the self’[47]: believing we are moral makes us more convincing in making others believe it too.
As a moral animal, we must continuously justify our actions to self and others. Tooby and Cosmides theorize that in the reciprocal social world, humans are continuously balancing their welfare tradeoff ratios towards others.[48] Welfare tradeoff means that people will sacrifice their own effort in order to benefit others. A person has a specific tradeoff ratio towards each other person, where ratios towards relatives, friends, and high-status persons are typically highest (because of inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism and indirect reciprocity). Anger is the emotion that creates incentives in the target to treat others better.[49] The usefulness of anger is related to one’s own bargaining position, which is set by the individual’s relative ability to inflict costs and to confer benefits. Those in power are angrier.[50] Citizens as regulators are in the position to inflict costs and to confer benefits, which may make them angrier towards wrongdoers than what they are as consumers.
Guilt appears when one learns that one should do more in a specific reciprocal relationship. Guilt is emotion combined with value: it directs future action and is evoked only when one learns new factors, not when the information flow stays the same.[51] Wright somewhat cynically sees sensitive sympathy as ‘nuanced investment advice’: we feel the most sympathetic towards those that are in the most desperate kind of distress.[52] This is because performing acts that will provoke the most gratitude will improve one’s fitness the most, as the grateful will adjust their welfare tradeoff ratios towards the benefactor.[53]
Janssen and Vanhamme,[54] Kahneman,[55] Wright,[56] and Joyce[57] discuss denial, over-optimism, blaming victims, blaming others, hypocrisy, bystander apathy, dilution of responsibility, bandwagon effect, loss aversion, and hyperbolic discounting as parts of species-specific human psychology. All these tendencies and biases have their roots in the millions of years of Homo sapiens evolutionary history. Our tribal brain is always looking for cues of someone needing help, and cues of who should help. One will only act morally if one is capable and expected to act. One is always looking for social signals to stay on the good side, to continue to be seen as a fair person and as a valuable member of tribe. Imitating neighbours was a major driver for moral behavior in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, and it still is.[58] Doing too much is detrimental from the fitness perspective: a human cannot have the reputation of being exploitable. If you give more than you get, it is a bigger problem than if you get more than you give.[59] If we believe rules are generally not obeyed, we will not obey them.[60] Even at the level of international politics, countries may want a good reputation as forerunners in sustainability, while avoiding a reputation as suckers that will do more than their fair share.
To keep a good reputation while not spending too much effort, Homo sapiens has developed the tendency to use various moral excuses in situations where we decide not to help. To be convincing, we believe our own excuses. We say the problem is not that severe, and/or that others should solve the problem, and/or that we are not capable of solving the problem. Distant, slowly evolving and/or vague problems do not elicit action.[61] The brain interprets there is no benefit in spending precious energy for pro-social acts, if results cannot be shown. Moral biases may make us honestly to believe that we (as Western consumers or as Western countries) are not responsible for the plight of distant food system workers or climate change caused by high-carbon food production.
4. Conclusions: Human Nature vs. Food System Transition?
Human evolutionary psychology consists of several tendencies that are against food system sustainability transitions. Our preference for high-calory foods such as meat or cheese as well as our disgust towards new foods such as insects or algae are major hindrances for the shift. Strong emotions towards distant peoples or intangible environmental problems are also not readily there, which is a challenge for engaging in moral behavior at the systemic level.
There are, however, possibilities for directing humans towards production and consumption where diets are both healthy and sustainable, thereby transforming the food system. Disgust towards novel foods such can be overcome through repeated exposure and examples of high-status persons. Alternative protein products should taste like they have plenty of calories. Humans can also be motivated to act against human rights violations or environmental destruction in the food system. Moral emotions can be triggered through narratives that bring the issues close. Humans will change food systems if they feel anger towards wrongdoers and guilt for not having done enough. Humans typically engage in moral competition for status through prestige. Transparency is vital for our moral intuitions to work, and the eyes-on-you effect is strong. Being thanked personally is highly rewarding and can support sustainable behavior.
Humans are looking for chances to show their responsibility, and witnessing others acting responsibly increases social pressure. Rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior is beneficial for one’s reputation only if it is made in public. While consumption acts are private in modern food systems, legislative acts are public. This may explain why consumers have not solved the injustices of the food system, but the same people as legislators might. Anger may also have a role: those in power are angrier.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Articles/Books/Reports
Armelagos, G.J. ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The Evolution of the Brain and the Determinants of Food Choice’ (2010) 66(2) Journal of Anthropological Research 161
Barclay, P., ‘The evolution of charitable behaviour and the power of reputation’ in S. C. Roberts (ed), Applied evolutionary psychology (Oxford University Press 2011), 149
Bowen, D.J. and N.E. Grunberg, ‘Variations in Food Preference and Consumption Across the Menstrual Cycle’ (1990) 47(2) Physiology & Behavior 287. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(90)90144-s
Buss, D., Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind, 4th ed. (Pearson Education, 2012)
Chao, Y.-H., C.-C. Yang and W.B. Chiou, ‘Food as ego-protective remedy for people experiencing shame. Experimental evidence for a new perspective on weight-related shame’ (2012) 59 Appetite 570
Cosmides, L. and J. Tooby, ‘Evolutionary Psychology: New Perspectives on Cognition and Motivation’ (2013) 64 Annual Review of Psychology 201
Croson, R. and U. Gneezy, ‘Gender differences in preferences’ (2009) 47(2) Journal of Economic Literature 448
Curtis, V., R. Aunger and T. Rabie, ‘Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease’ (2004) 271 (Suppl 4271) Proceedings of Biological Sciences S131
Darwin, C., The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), Finnish translation by Leikola, A. (Terra Cognita Helsinki 2009).
Dawkins, R., ‘Sustainability does not come naturally: Darwinian perspective on values’ (Inaugural Lecture, The Environment Foundation, 14 November 2001)
Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976)
R.I.M. Dunbar, ‘The social brain: psychological underpinnings and implications for the structure of organizations’ (2014) 23(2) Current Directions in Psychological Science, 109
Ganley, R.M., ‘Emotion and Eating in Obesity: A Review of the Literature’ (1989) 8(3) International Journal of Eating Disorders 343
Garcia, J.R. and G. Saad ‘Evolutionary neuromarketing: darwinizing the neuroimaging paradigm for consumer behavior’ (2008) 7(4-5) Journal of Consumer Behaviour 397
Gettler, L.T., T. W. McDade, A.B. Feranil and C.W. Kuzawa, ‘Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males’ (2011) 108(39) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16 194
Griskevicius, V. and D.T. Kenrick ’Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior’ (2013) 23(3) Journal of Consumer Psychology 372
Griskevicius, V., S. M. Cantu and M. Van Vugt, ‘The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship’ (2012) 31(1) Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 115
Griskevicius, V., J. M. Tybur and B. van den Bergh, ’Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation’ (2010) 98(3) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 392.
Hamilton, W. D., ‘The genetical evolution of social behaviour I-II.’ (1964) 7(1) Journal of Theoretical Biology 1
Hardy, C.L., and M. Van Vugt (2006). ‘Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis’ (2006) 32(10) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1402
Iredale, W. and M. Van Vugt (2011). ’Altruism as showing off: a signalling perspective on promoting green behaviour and acts of kindness’ in S. C. Craig (ed.), Applied evolutionary psychology (Oxford University Press, 2011)
Janssen, C. and J. Vanhamme, J. ’Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR-Consumer Paradox’ (2015) 130(4) Journal of Business Ethics 775
Joyce, R., The Evolution of Morality (MIT Press, 2005)
Jurgilevich, A., T. Birge, J. Kentala-Lehtonen, K. Korhonen-Kurki, J. Pietikäinen, L. Saikku and H. Schösler, ‘Transition towards Circular Economy in the Food System’ (2016) 8(1) Sustainability 69
Kahneman, D., Thinking, Fast and Slow. (Penguin Books, 2011)
Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch and R.H. Thaler ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’ 5(1) The Journal of economic perspectives 193
Knaapila, A., K. Silventoinen, U. Broms, R. J. Rose, M. Perola, J. Kaprio and H. M. Tuorila ‘Food Neophobia in Young Adults: Genetic Architecture and Relation to Personality, Pleasantness and Use Frequency of Foods, and Body Mass Index—A Twin Study’ (2011) 41(4) Behavioural Genetics 512, 519.
Laran, J. and A. Salerno (2013) ‘Life-History Strategy, Food Choice, and Caloric Consumption’ (2013) 24(2) Psychological Science 167
Nowak, M. and K. Sigmund ‘Evolution of indirect reciprocity’ (2005) Nature 437 1291
Perone, P., Ç. Çınar, P. D'ursi, L. R. Durmuşoğlu, V. Lal and J. Tybur ‘Examining the effect of hunger on responses to pathogen cues and novel foods’ (2021) 42(2) Evolution and Human Behavior 371
Puska P., S. Kurki, M. Lähdesmäki, M. Siltaoja and H. Luomala, ‘Sweet taste of prosocial status signaling: When eating organic foods makes you happy and hopeful’ (2018) 121 Appetite 348
Richardson, B.J. ’A damp squib: environmental law from a human evo-lutionary perspective’ (2011) 7(3) Osgoode CLPE Research Paper Series
Ronay, R. and W. von Hippel, ‘Power, Testosterone and Risk-taking’ (2010) 23(5) Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 473
Rottman, J., ‘Evolution, Development, and the Emergence of Disgust’ (2014) 12(2) Evolutionary Psychology 417
Saad, G., ‘Evolutionary consumption’ (2013) 23(3) Journal of Consumer Psychology 351
Saris, W.H.M., S.B. Heymsfield and W.J. Evans, ‘Human brain evolution: food for thoughts’ (2008) 11(6) Editorial in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 683
Schienle, A., J. Potthoff, E. Schönthaler and C. Schlintl ‘Disgust-Related Memory Bias in Children and Adults’ (2021) Evolutionary Psychology. April 2021.
Scott-Phillips, T.C., T.E. Dickins, and S.A. West, ‘Evolutionary Theory and the Ultimate–Proximate Distinction in the Human Behavioral Sciences’ (2011) 6(1) Perspectives in Psychological Sciences 38
Sell, A., J. Tooby and L. Cosmides, L., ‘Formidability and the logic of human anger’ (2009) 109(35) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 12073
Shutts, K., K.D. Kinzler and J.M. DeJesus ’Understanding Infants’ and Children’s Social Learning About Foods: Previous Research and New Prospects: Selective Social Learning’ (2013) 49(3) Developmental psychology 419
Silk, J.B. and B.R. House, ‘Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments’ (2011) 108(Suppl 2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 10910
Thayer, R.E., Calm Energy: How People Regulate Mood with Food and Exercise (Oxford University Press, 2003)
Tinbergen, N. (1963). ‘On the aims and methods of ethology’ (1963) 20(4) Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 410
Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides, ‘The Evolutionary Psychology of the Emotions and Their Relationship to Internal Regulatory Variables’ in M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones and L.F. Barrett (eds.), Handbook of Emotions, 3rd Ed. (Guilford, 2008)
Trivers, R.L., ‘The evolution of reciprocal altruism’ (1971) 46(1) Quarterly Review of Biology 35
Trivers R.L. ‘Parental investment and sexual selection’ in B. Campbell (ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man (Aldine, 1972)
Veeck, A. ‘Encounters with Extreme Foods: Neophilic/Neophobic Tendencies and Novel Foods’ (2010) 16(2) Journal of Food Products Marketing 246
de Vries, R., P. Morquecho-Campos, E. de Vet, M. de Rijk, E. Postma, K. de Graaf, B. Engel and S. Boesveldt, ‘Human spatial memory implicitly prioritizes high-calorie foods’ (2020) 10 Scientific Reports 15174
Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life. (Pantheon, 1994)
[1] Anu Lähteenmäki-Uutela, Finnish Environment Institute, Latokartanonkaari 11, 07900 Helsinki, Finland anu.lahteenmaki-uutela@syke.fi
[2] E.g. D. Buss, Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (Pearson New International Edition, 2013), 395.
[3] T.C. Scott-Phillips, T.E. Dickins, and S.A. West, ‘Evolutionary Theory and the Ultimate–Proximate Distinction in the Human Behavioral Sciences’ (2011) 6(1) Perspectives in Psychological Sciences 38, 38.
[4] V. Griskevicius and D.T. Kenrick ’Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior’ (2013) 23(3) Journal of Consumer Psychology 372, 372.
[5] J.R. Garcia & G. Saad ‘Evolutionary neuromarketing: darwinizing the neuroimaging paradigm for consumer behavior’ (2008) 7(4-5) Journal of Consumer Behaviour 397.
[6] G. Saad, ‘Evolutionary consumption’ (2013) 23(3) Journal of Consumer Psychology 351, 362.
[7] See e.g. A. Jurgilevich, T. Birge, J. Kentala-Lehtonen, K. Korhonen-Kurki, J. Pietikäinen, L. Saikku and H. Schösler, ‘Transition towards Circular Economy in the Food System’ (2016) 8(1) Sustainability 69, 74.
[8] L. Cosmides and J. Tooby, ‘Evolutionary Psychology: New Perspectives on Cognition and Motivation’ (2013) 64 Annual Review of Psychology 201, 203.
[9] W.H.M. Saris, S.B. Heymsfield and W.J. Evans, ‘Human brain evolution: food for thoughts’ (2008) 11(6) Editorial in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 683, 684-685.
[10] C. Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872), Finnish translation by Leikola, A. (Terra Cognita Helsinki 2009), 222-223.
[11] J. Rottman, ‘Evolution, Development, and the Emergence of Disgust’ (2014) 12(2) Evolutionary Psychology 417, 419.
[12] Ibid.
[13] A. Schienle, J. Potthoff, E. Schönthaler and C. Schlintl ‘Disgust-Related Memory Bias in Children and Adults’ (2021) Evolutionary Psychology. April 2021.
[14] V. Curtis, R. Aunger and T. Rabie, ‘Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease’ (2004) 271 (Suppl 4271) Proceedings of Biological Sciences S131.
[15] A. Knaapila et al., ‘Food Neophobia in Young Adults: Genetic Architecture and Relation to Personality, Pleasantness and Use Frequency of Foods, and Body Mass Index—A Twin Study’ (2011) 41(4) Behavioural Genetics 512, 519.
[16] R. Ronay and W. von Hippel, ‘Power, Testosterone and Risk-taking’ (2010) 23(5) Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 473, 479.
[17] Gettler et al., ‘Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males’ (2011) 108(39) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16 194, 16 194.
[18] G.J. Armelagos ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma. The Evolution of the Brain and the Determinants of Food Choice’ (2010) 66(2) Journal of Anthropological Research 161, 163.
[19] P. Perone et al., ‘Examining the effect of hunger on responses to pathogen cues and novel foods’ (2021) 42(2) Evolution and Human Behavior 371, 371.
[20] A. Veeck ‘Encounters with Extreme Foods: Neophilic/Neophobic Tendencies and Novel Foods’ (2010) 16(2) Journal of Food Products Marketing 246, 249.
[21] D. Kahneman, J.L. Knetsch and R.H. Thaler ‘Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias’ 5(1) The Journal of economic perspectives 193, 197.
[22] K. Shutts, K.D. Kinzler and J.M. DeJesus ’Understanding Infants’ and Children’s Social Learning About Foods: Previous Research and New Prospects: Selective Social Learning’ (2013) 49(3) Developmental psychology 419, 420.
[23] R. de Vries et al, ‘Human spatial memory implicitly prioritizes high-calorie foods’ (2020) 10 Scientific Reports 15174.
[24] D.J. Bowen and N.E. Grunberg, ‘Variations in Food Preference and Consumption Across the Menstrual Cycle’ (1990) 47(2) Physiology & Behavior 287, 287.
[25] J. Laran and A. Salerno (2013) ‘Life-History Strategy, Food Choice, and Caloric Consumption’ (2013) 24(2) Psychological Science 167, 171.
[26] R.M. Ganley, ‘Emotion and Eating in Obesity: A Review of the Literature’ (1989) 8(3) International Journal of Eating Disorders 343, 348.
[27] Y.-H. Chao, C.-C. Yang and W.B. Chiou, ‘Food as ego-protective remedy for people experiencing shame. Experimental evidence for a new perspective on weight-related shame’ (2012) 59 Appetite 570.
[28] R.E. Thayer Calm Energy: How People Regulate Mood with Food and Exercise (Oxford University Press, 2003), 54.
[29] Ibid, 55.
[30] W.D. Hamilton, ‘The genetical evolution of social behaviour I-II.’ (1964) 7(1) Journal of Theoretical Biology 17.
[31] R.L. Trivers, ‘The evolution of reciprocal altruism’ (1971) 46(1) Quarterly Review of Biology 35.
[32] Hamilton (n 28).
[33] Trivers (n 29) 35.
[34] Saad (n 7) 361.
[35] Richard Dawkins, ‘Sustainability does not come naturally: Darwinian perspective on values’ (Inaugural Lecture, The Environment Foundation, 14 November 2001) 10-11.
[36] See J. Tooby and L. Cosmides, ‘The Evolutionary Psychology of the Emotions and Their Relationship to Internal Regulatory Variables’ in M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones and L.F. Barrett (eds.), Handbook of Emotions, 3rd Ed. (Guilford, 2008) 1992.
[37] See, e.g., R.I.M. Dunbar, ‘The social brain: psychological underpinnings and implications for the structure of organizations’ (2014) 23(2) Current Directions in Psychological Science, 109, 109.
[38] See V. Griskevicius, V., S. M. Cantu and M. Van Vugt, ‘The evolutionary bases for sustainable behavior: implications for marketing, policy, and social entrepreneurship’ (2012) 31(1) Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 115, 117.
[39] P. Barclay, ‘The evolution of charitable behaviour and the power of reputation’ in S. C. Roberts (ed), Applied evolutionary psychology (Oxford University Press, 2011) 149.
[40] M. Nowak and K. Sigmund ‘Evolution of indirect reciprocity’ (2005) Nature 437 1291, 1291; R. Joyce, The Evolution of Morality (MIT Press, 2005) 31.
[41] C.L. Hardy and M. Van Vugt, ‘Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis’ (2006) 32(10) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1402, 1412.
[42] W. Iredale and M. Van Vugt, ’Altruism as showing off: a signalling perspective on promoting green behaviour and acts of kindness’ in S. C. Craig (ed.), Applied evolutionary psychology (Oxford University Press, 2011) 176.
[43] V. Griskevicius, M. Tybur and B. van den Bergh, ’Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation’ (2010) 98(3) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 392, 394.
[44] P. Puska, S. Kurki, M. Lähdesmäki, M. Siltaoja and H. Luomala, ‘Sweet taste of prosocial status signaling: When eating organic foods makes you happy and hopeful’ (2018) 121 Appetite 348, 349.
[45] Griskevicius and Kenrick (n 5) add exact page number.
[46] C. Janssen and J. Vanhamme, J. ’Theoretical Lenses for Understanding the CSR-Consumer Paradox’ (2015) 130(4) Journal of Business Ethics 775.
[47] R. Wright, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life (Pantheon, 1994) 278.
[48] Tooby and Cosmides (n 35) 133.
[49] Ibid 132.
[50] A.J. Sell, J. Tooby and L. Cosmides, ‘Formidability and the logic of human anger’ (2009) 109(35) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 12073.
[51] R. Joyce, The Evolution of Morality (MIT Press, 2005) add exact page number.
[52] Wright (n 47) 204.
[53] Tooby and Cosmides (n 35) 134.
[54] Janssen and Vanhamme (n 46).
[55] D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Penguin Books, 2011).
[56] Wright (n 46).
[57] Joyce (n 50).
[58] Griskevicius et al. 2012 (n 37) 122.
[59] Wright (n 47) 278.
[60] Griskevicius et al. 2012 (n 37) 122.
[61] B.J. Richardson ’A damp squib: environmental law from a human evolutionary perspective’ (2011) 7(3) Osgoode CLPE Research Paper Series, 38.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IntJlRRuralRLawP/2021/2.html