Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:21:53.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bifocal stance theory: An effort to broaden, extend, and clarify

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Robert Jagiello Open the ORCID record for Robert Jagiello [Opens in a new window] ,
Cecilia Heyes Open the ORCID record for Cecilia Heyes [Opens in a new window]  and
Harvey Whitehouse Open the ORCID record for Harvey Whitehouse [Opens in a new window]
Robert Jagiello
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, UK [email protected] [email protected]
Cecilia Heyes
Affiliation:
All Souls College and Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 4AL, UK [email protected]
Harvey Whitehouse
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Social Cohesion, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, UK [email protected] [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bifocal stance theory (BST) of cultural evolution has prompted a wide-ranging discussion with broadly three aims: to apply the theory to novel contexts; to extend the conceptual framework; to offer critical feedback on various aspects of the theory. We first discuss BST's relevance to the diverse range of topics which emerged from the commentaries, followed by a consideration of how our framework can be supplemented by and compared to other theories. Lastly, the criticisms that were raised by a subset of commentaries allow us to clarify parts of our theory.

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e275
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beisert, M., Zmyj, N., Liepelt, R., Jung, F., Prinz, W., & Daum, M. M. (2012). Rethinking “rational imitation” in 14-month old infants: A perceptual distraction approach. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32563. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032563CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, P. (2002). Religion explained: The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors. Vintage.Google Scholar
Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2016). Instrumental and conventional interpretations of behavior are associated with distinct outcomes in early childhood. Child Development, 87(2), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12472CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. (2012). What's social about social learning? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025180CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. (2018). Enquire within: Cultural evolution and cognitive science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1743), 20170051. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. M. (1994). Social learning in animals: Categories and mechanisms. Biological Reviews, 69, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. M. (2016). Born pupils? Natural pedagogy and cultural pedagogy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 280–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heyes, C. M. (2021). Imitation and culture: What gives? Mind and Language, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12388Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., Harrison, M. A., & Gallup, G. G. Jr (2007). Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 3(5), 147470490700500320.Google Scholar
Jankowiak, W. R., Volsche, S. L., & Garcia, J. R. (2015). Is the romantic–sexual kiss a near human universal? American Anthropologist, 3(117), 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapitány, R., Kavanagh, C., Whitehouse, H., & Nielsen, M. (2018). Examining memory for ritualized gesture in complex causal sequences. Cognition, 181, 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nyhof, M., & Barrett, J. (2001). Spreading non-natural concepts: The role of intuitive conceptual structures in memory and transmission of cultural materials. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 1(1), 69–100. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853701300063589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosis, R., Kress, H. C., & Boster, J. S. (2007). Scars for war: Evaluating alternative signaling explanations for cross-cultural variance in ritual costs. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.02.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson-Jones, R., Legare, C. H., Whitehouse, H., & Clegg, J. (2014). Task-specific effects of ostracism on imitation of social convention in early childhood. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 35(3), 204–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson-Jones, R. E., Whitehouse, H., & Legare, C. H. (2016). In-group ostracism increases high-fidelity imitation in early childhood. Psychological Science, 27(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615607205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehouse, H. (2004). Modes of religiosity: A cognitive theory of religious transmission. AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2011). The coexistence problem in psychology, anthropology, and evolutionary theory. Human Development, 54, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2012). Ritual, cognition, and evolution. In Sun, R. (Ed.), Grounding the social sciences in the cognitive sciences (pp. 265–284). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2018). Dying for the group: Towards a general theory of extreme self-sacrifice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18000249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, H. (2021). The ritual animal: Imitation and cohesion in the evolution of social complexity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar