Integrative Literature Review

Linked Articles: Bjorklund; doi: 10.1111/cdev.13019 Bjorklund; doi: 10.1111/cdev.13020 Frankenhuis and Tiokhin; doi: 10.1111/cdev.13021

Evolutionary Developmental Psychology: 2017 Redux

Cristine H. Legare The University of Texas at Austin

Jennifer M. Clegg Texas State University

Nicole J. Wen The University of Texas at Austin

Bjorklund is a pioneer in bringing evolutionary theory to developmental psychology. In doing so, he has made major contributions to the field, including publishing a widely adopted and influ- ential textbook (Bjorklund & Causey, 2017). We commend him for his groundbreaking research and strongly agree that it is “undeniable that evolu- tionary thinking has seeped into the minds of many cognitive developmental psychologists” (Bjorklund, 2018, p. 14).

We suggest that evolutionary theory has impacted developmental psychology even more strongly than Bjorklund suggests. Many of the most influential recent programs of research in the field of developmental psychology, cognitive and other- wise, take an evolutionary approach to understand- ing the ontogeny of cognition and behavior (as just a few recent examples: Barrett et al., 2013; Blake et al., 2015; Broesch, Rochat, Olah, Broesch, & Hen- rich, 2016; Clay & Tennie, 2017; Gopnik et al., 2017; Hamlin, 2014; Henrich, 2015a; Heyes, in press; House et al., 2013; Nielsen & Haun, 2016; Rosati & Warneken, 2016; Santos & Rosati, 2015; van Leeu- wen, Call, & Haun, 2014; Warneken & Tomasello, 2017; Wertz & Wynn, 2014). Additional evidence of impact can be found in recent programs at major conferences in the field. The Society for Research in Child Development, the Cognitive Development Society, and the International Congress for Infant

Studies have all featured evolutionary research in preconferences and invited addresses in recent years. In fact, evolution has been so successful as a metatheory within developmental psychology, many doing research within this tradition do not use this label to identify their area of expertise or theoretical approach.

Perhaps as a result of developmental psycholo- gists conducting research that is increasingly guided by evolutionary theory, but not explicitly labeled as such, there is a large body of recent literature not reviewed by Bjorklund. To give one example, the best research on cognitive obstacles to understand- ing evolution and recommendations for how to teach it comes from research programs in cognitive and developmental psychology that draw on evolu- tionary theory. This research demonstrates that intu- itive cognitive bias such as essentialism and teleological reasoning impede understanding of evo- lutionary concepts (e.g., Emmons, Smith, & Kele- men, 2016; Evans, in press; Heddy & Sinatra, 2013; Legare, Lane, & Evans, 2013; Lombrozo, 2013; Short & Hawley, 2015; Shtulman, Neal, & Lindquist, 2016).

Another increasingly influential trend within developmental, cognitive, and comparative research guided by evolutionary theory, not covered in Bjorklund’s review, is to examine the origins of complexity and variability in human culture. Tack- ling interdisciplinary questions of this kind requires understanding the differences between human and

Commentary on Bjorklund (2017). Child Development. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Cristine H. Legare, The University of Texas at Austin, Depart- ment of Psychology, 1 University Station #A8000, Austin, TX, 78712. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

© 2018 The Authors Child Development © 2018 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2018/8906-0026 DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13018

Child Development, November/December 2018, Volume 89, Number 6, Pages 2282–2287

nonhuman social learning capacities, the ontogeny of those capacities, and their expression across diverse human populations. We propose that only the combination of these perspectives will enable us to fully understand the roots of human culture. We and others advocate for a triadic approach to understanding the evolution and ontogeny of cul- tural learning by integrating comparative, cross- cultural, and developmental psychological research, with all of these lines drawing heavily on evolu- tionary theory (Legare, 2017; Nielsen & Haun, 2016).

Our research differs from Bjorklund’s not because we disagree about the importance and impact of evo- lutionary theory within developmental psychology, but instead is based on the relative emphasis we place on the scientific importance of understanding cultural transmission and variation. Examining cul- tural variation would enrich Bjorklund’s discussion of developmental cognitive neuroscience and cogni- tive development. Claims about the universality and ontogeny of cognitive mechanisms without data on global diversity are unwarranted (Nielsen, Haun, Kaertner, & Legare, 2017). Prioritizing studying cul- tural diversity in programs of research would also encourage researchers to utilize cutting-edge and state-of-the-art methodologies and tools, elevating evolutionary developmental science programs. Below we describe an example of a comparative, cross-cultural, and developmental program of research on cultural learning and social group cogni- tion and behavior, all based on evolutionary theory.

Comparative Perspectives on Cultural Learning

Cultural variation in humans is unique among ani- mals and differs dramatically even from our closest primate relatives (Boyette & Hewlett, 2017; Henrich, 2015b; Lew-Levy, Reckin, Lavi, Crist�obal-Azkarate, & Ellis-Davies, 2017; Mesoudi, Chang, Murray, & Lu, 2015; Terashima & Hewlett, 2016). Here culture is defined as “group-typical behaviors shared by members of a community that rely on socially learned and transmitted information” (Laland & Hoppitt, 2003). Although nonhuman animals may have the ability to learn social information (Aplin, 2015; Leadbeater, 2015; Perry et al., 2003; Plotnik, Lair, Suphachoksahakun, & de Waal, 2011; White- head & Rendell, 2015) and to transmit group-speci- fic behavior (Cantor et al., 2015; Garland et al., 2013; Laland & Galef, 2009), humans display a much wider repertoire of socially acquired and transmitted behaviors that vary more across groups

than nonhuman animals (Dean, Vale, Laland, Flynn, & Kendal, 2014; Johnson-Pynn, Fragaszy, & Cummins-Sebree, 2003).

How does human cognition differ from non- human primate cognition? One potential candidate is cross-species variation in social cognition (van Schaik & Burkart, 2011). Our prolonged early development also sets humans aside from other primates. As Bjorklund and others suggest, natural selection favored an extended childhood to allow for increased flexibility in cognitive development (Bjorklund, 2018; Bjorklund & Ellis, 2014). During this extended juve- nile period, our offspring are dependent on adults for survival, and in turn, this dependency increases opportunities for interaction with caregivers and enables social learning (Hublin, 2005).

The technological and social complexity of human populations is due to our ability for cumu- lative cultural transmission, a process by which the discoveries and inventions of others are built upon to create increasingly complex reserves of socially heritable knowledge (Henrich, 2015b). Human psy- chological flexibility allows us to build upon estab- lished behaviors by relinquishing old solutions and flexibly switching to more productive or efficient ones (Davis, Vale, Schapiro, Lambeth, & Whiten, 2016). Evidence for culture in nonhuman species continues to grow, but there is little evidence for the accumulation of cultural innovation in nonhu- man animals. Recent comparative research has examined the development of social learning and imitative flexibility across hominin evolutionary his- tory (Whiten, 2017). Comparative research on this topic will increase our knowledge of how cognitive capacity may constrain young children’s and chim- panzees’ learning potential and technological skill, as well as elucidating the diverse learning heuristics that children and chimpanzees employ. Although largely absent from Bjorklund’s commentary, re- search contrasting children’s and other primates’ social cognition adds to our understanding of the origins of cumulative culture in humans and evolu- tionary theory more broadly.

Development and Diversity of Cultural Learning

Young children are adept at acquiring the beliefs and practices of whatever group they are born into, a cognitive capacity that requires substantial flexi- bility. We agree with Bjorklund that the sociocogni- tive mechanisms that children display are not the “derivatives of ‘hard’ cognition” but a set of critical psychological adaptations in their own right

Evolutionary Developmental Psychology 2283

(Bjorklund, 2018, p. 15). For example, children have a number of cognitive biases that aid in the acquisi- tion of their specific cultural practices. These biases include preferences for learning from those who are from similar social groups (Kinzler, Dupoux, & Spelke, 2007), those who conform (Haun & Over, 2014) and display behavioral or cognitive consensus with others (Claidi�ere & Whiten, 2012; Corriveau, Fusaro, & Harris, 2009; Herrmann, Legare, Harris, & Whitehouse, 2013), and those who display prestige (Chudek, Heller, Birch, & Henrich, 2012; Henrich, 2009).

Missing from Bjorklund’s commentary on the development of the sociocognitive brain and the social brain hypothesis (Bjorklund, 2018, p. 15) is a discussion of the flexibility and diversity of chil- dren’s social learning. We argue that studying the flexibility and diversity of children’s sociocognitive development provides insight into the evolution and ontogeny of human culture. This same flexibil- ity and diversity provides an interesting evolution- ary problem—if children’s capacity for social learning explains cultural transmission, the psycho- logical mechanisms should be universal, but these psychological mechanisms must also be respon- sive to diverse ontogenetic contexts and cultural ecologies (Apicella & Barrett, 2016; Hrdy, 2009; Legare & Harris, 2016; Nielsen et al., 2017). To address this problem, we must first ask: H is cul- ture acquired?

Children possess cognitive and communication systems that evolved to acquire the complicated technical and social skills characteristic of human cultures. They are attentive to social input and learn important skills and information through observa- tion. Another way that children acquire cultural knowledge and practices is through imitation. As Bjorklund mentions, we know that children are also precocious imitators and “overimitation” may be an adaptive learning strategy to promote the high-fide- lity acquisition and transmission of behavior. Is high fidelity copying an adaptation that provides the psychological foundation of human cultural transmission? What is the function of imitation? We have developed an integrated cognitive psychologi- cal and ontogenetic account of how imitation and innovation work in tandem to drive cultural learn- ing and facilitate our capacity for cumulative cul- ture. We propose that the unique demands of acquiring instrumental skills (based on physical causation) and rituals (based on social convention) provide insight into when children imitate, when they innovate, and to what degree. For instrumental learning, with an increase in experience, high-fidelity

imitation decreases and innovation increases. In con- trast, for conventional learning, imitative fidelity stays high, regardless of experience, and innovation stays low (Legare & Nielsen, 2015).

What distinguishes instrumental from ritual prac- tices is a matter of interpretation based on contextual information and social cues. We have used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to exam- ine the kind of information children use to determine when an event provides an opportunity for learning instrumental skills versus learning cultural conven- tions (Clegg & Legare, 2016b; Legare, Wen, Her- rmann, & Whitehouse, 2015), the implications of learning instrumental skills versus learning cultural conventions for social group behavior (Watson-Jones & Legare, 2016; Watson-Jones, Legare, Whitehouse, & Clegg, 2014; Wen, Herrmann, & Legare, 2016), and socialization of instrumental skills versus cultural conventions in early childrearing environments (Clegg & Legare, 2017; Clegg, Wen, & Legare, 2017). Data from cross-cultural research have demonstrated that children use imitation flexibly to acquire the specific practices, beliefs, and values of their groups (Clegg & Legare, 2016a).

To understand the ontogeny of human social learning, we must examine how it changes over the life span and how it varies in a strategically selected set of cultural contexts that differ along theoretically relevant variables. How do caregiver socialization practices and the development of social learning capacities enable and structure cumulative cultural transmission? We are addressing the question by studying the impact of diverse childrearing environ- ments, practices, and social dynamics on the devel- opment of cultural learning. For example, we conduct research in educational settings and home environments in both the United States (Austin, Texas) and Vanuatu (Tanna; Clegg & Legare, 2016a). Vanuatu, a Melanesian island nation in the South Pacific, is one of the most remote, culturally and linguistically diverse, and understudied coun- tries in the world. Vanuatu provides a unique opportunity to explore the development of cultural learning in populations that vary in extent of Wes- tern influence. Conducting this research cross-cultu- rally in Vanuatu and the United States allows us to examine the imitative foundations of cultural learn- ing in contexts that represent key aspects of the diversity of human childrearing practices.

Humans are uniquely able to accumulate and build upon the cultural innovations of previous generations (Kurzban & Barrett, 2012; Pagel, 2012; Pradhan, Tennie, & van Schaik, 2012; Whiten & Erdal, 2012). Teaching and imitation work in tandem

2284 Legare, Clegg, and Wen

to conserve and transmit group-specific cultural knowledge, increasing the likelihood for modifica- tions and innovations, thus enhancing cultural com- plexity (Enquist, Strimling, Eriksson, Laland, & Sjostrand, 2010). Developing a comprehensive understanding of teaching and imitation requires the systematic study of cultural variation in childrearing practices (Nielsen et al., 2017). We can enrich our understanding of the developmental origins of cumulative cultural transmission by conducting cross-cultural research on cognitive and social devel- opment (Legare & Harris, 2016).

In sum, comparative, developmental, and cross- cultural research guided by evolutionary theory provides insight into the evolution and ontogeny of human cognition and behavior. Evolutionary theory has made a profound and permanent impact on the field of developmental psychology, shaping our own research programs, as well as those of many others. Bjorklund deserves substantial credit for this striking scientific success story and should be feel- ing very well indeed.

References

Apicella, C. L., & Barrett, H. C. (2016). Cross-cultural evolutionary psychology. Current Opinion in Psychol- ogy, 7, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08. 015

Aplin, L. M. (2015). Experimentally induced innovations lead to persistent culture via conformity in wild birds. Nature, 518, 538–541. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature 13998

Barrett, H. C., Broesch, T., Scott, R. M., He, Z., Baillargeon, R., Wu, D., . . . Laurence, S. (2013). Early false-belief understanding in traditional non-Western societies. Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20122654. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2654

Bjorklund, D. F. (2018). A metatheory for cognitive devel- opment (or “Piaget is dead” revisited). Child Develop- ment, 89, 2288–2302. https://doi.org/10.1111/13019

Bjorklund, D. F., & Causey, K. (2017). Children0s thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bjorklund, D. F., & Ellis, B. J. (2014). Children, childhood, and development in evolutionary perspective. Develop- mental Review, 34, 225–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.d r.2014.05.005

Blake, P. R., McAuliffe, K., Corbit, J., Callaghan, T. C., Barry, O., Bowie, A., . . . Warneken, F. (2015). The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies. Nature, 528, 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15703

Boyette, A. H., & Hewlett, B. S. (2017). Teaching in hun- ter-gatherers. Review of Philosophy and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-017-0347-2

Broesch, T., Rochat, P., Olah, K., Broesch, J., & Henrich, J. (2016). Similarities and differences in maternal respon- siveness in three societies: Evidence from Fiji, Kenya, and the United States. Child Development. https://doi. org/10.1111/cdev.12501

Cantor, M., Shoemaker, L. G., Cabral, R. B., Flores, C. O., Varga, M., & Whitehead, H. (2015). Multilevel animal societies can emerge from cultural transmission. Nature Communications, 6, 8091. https://doi.org/10.1038/nc omms9091

Chudek, M., Heller, S., Birch, S., & Henrich, J. (2012). Prestige-biased cultural learning: Bystander’s differen- tial attention to potential models influences children’s learning. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.05.005

Claidi�ere, N., & Whiten, A. (2012). Integrating the study of conformity and culture in humans and nonhuman animals. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 126–145. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0025868

Clay, Z., & Tennie, C. (2017). Is overimitation a uniquely human phenomenon? Insights from human children as compared to bonobos. Child Development. https://doi. org/10.1111/cdev.12857

Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2016a). A cross-cultural comparison of children’s imitative flexibility. Develop- mental Psychology, 52, 1435–1444. https://doi.org/10. 1037/dev0000131

Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2016b). Instrumental and con- ventional interpretations of behavior are associated with distinct outcomes in early childhood. Child Development, 87, 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12472

Clegg, J. M., & Legare, C. H. (2017). Parents scaffold flexi- ble imitation during early childhood. Journal of Experi- mental Child Psychology, 153, 1–14. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jecp.2016.08.004

Clegg, J. M., Wen, N. J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). Is non- conformity WEIRD? Cultural variation in adults’ beliefs about children’s competency and conformity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000275

Corriveau, K. H., Fusaro, M., & Harris, P. L. (2009). Going with the flow: Preschoolers prefer nondissenters as informants. Psychological Science, 20, 372–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02291.x

Davis, S. J., Vale, G. L., Schapiro, S. J., Lambeth, S. P., & Whiten, A. (2016). Foundations of cumulative culture in apes: Improved foraging efficiency through relinquish- ing and combining witnessed behaviours in chim- panzees (Pan troglodytes). Scientific Reports, 6, 35953. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35953

Dean, L. G., Vale, G. L., Laland, K. N., Flynn, E. G., & Kendal, R. L. (2014). Human cumulative culture: A comparative perspective. Biological Review Cambridge Philosophical Society, 89, 284–301. https://doi.org/10. 1111/brv.12053

Emmons, N. A., Smith, H., & Kelemen, D. (2016). Chang- ing minds with the story of adaptation: Strategies for teaching young children about natural selection. Early

Evolutionary Developmental Psychology 2285

Education and Development, 27, 1205–1221. https://doi. org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1169823

Enquist, M., Strimling, P., Eriksson, K., Laland, K., & Sjostrand, J. (2010). One cultural parent makes no cul- ture. Animal Behaviour, 79, 1353–1362. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.03.009

Evans, E. M. (2016). Bridging the gap: From intuitive to scientific reasoning-the case of evolution. In K. Rutten, S. Blancke, & R. Soetaert (Eds.), Perspectives on science and culture West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Garland, E. C., Gedamke, J., Rekdahl, M. L., Noad, M. J., Garrigue, C., & Gales, N. (2013). Humpback whale song on the Southern Ocean feeding grounds: Implica- tions for cultural transmission. PLoS ONE, 8. https://d oi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079422

Gopnik, A., O’Grady, S., Lucas, C. G., Griffiths, T. L., Wente, A., Bridgers, S., . . . Dahl, R. E. (2017). Changes in cognitive flexibility and hypothesis search across human life history from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 7892–7899. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700811114

Hamlin, J. K. (2014). Context-dependent social evaluation in 4.5-month-old human infants: The role of domain- general versus domain-specific processes in the devel- opment of social evaluation. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00614

Haun, D. B. M., & Over, H. (2014). Like me: A homo- phily-based account of human culture. In T. Breyer (Ed.), Epistemological dimensions of evolutionary psychol- ogy (pp. 117–130). New York, NY: Springer.

Heddy, B. C., & Sinatra, G. M. (2013). Transforming mis- conceptions: Using transformative experience to pro- mote positive affect and conceptual change in students learning about biological evolution. Science Education, 97, 723–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21072

Henrich, J. (2009). The evolution of costly displays, coop- eration and religion: Credibility enhancing displays and their implications for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005

Henrich, J. (2015a). Culture and social behavior. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 84–89. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.02.001

Henrich, J. (2015b). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Herrmann, P. A., Legare, C. H., Harris, P. L., & White- house, H. (2013). Stick to the script: The effect of witness- ing multiple actors on children’s imitation. Cognition, 129, 536–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013. 08.010

Heyes, C. M. (in press). Enquire within: Cultural evolu- tion and cognitive science. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: B.

House, B. R., Silk, J. B., Henrich, J., Barrett, H. C., Scelza, B. A., Boyette, A. H., . . . Laurence, S. (2013). Ontogeny of prosocial behavior across diverse societies. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 14586–14591. https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.1221217110

Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary ori- gins of mutual understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hublin, J. J. (2005). Evolution of the human brain and comparative paleoanthropology. In S. Dehaene, J.-R. Duhamel, M. D. Hauser, & G. Rizzolatti (Eds.), In from monkey brain to human brain: A Fyssen Foundation sympo- sium (pp. 57–71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson-Pynn, J., Fragaszy, D., & Cummins-Sebree, S. (2003). Common territories in comparative and devel- opmental psychology: Quest for shared means and meaning in behavioral investigations. International Jour- nal of Comparative Psychology, 16, 1–27.

Kinzler, K. D., Dupoux, E., & Spelke, E. S. (2007). The native language of social cognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 12577–12580. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705345104

Kurzban, R., & Barrett, H. C. (2012). Origins of cumula- tive culture. Science, 335, 1056. https://doi.org/10. 1126/science.1219232

Laland, K. N., & Galef, B. (2009). The question of animal culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laland, K. N., & Hoppitt, W. (2003). Do animals have culture? Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10111

Leadbeater, E. (2015). What evolves in the evolution of social learning? Journal of Zoology, 295(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12197

Legare, C. H. (2017). Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 7877–7883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620743114

Legare, C. H., & Harris, P. L. (2016). The ontogeny of cul- tural learning. Child Development, 87, 633–642. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12542

Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthro- pomorphizing science: How does it affect the develop- ment of evolutionary concepts? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59, 168–197. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2013.0009

Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2015). Imitation and innova- tion: The dual engines of cultural learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 688–699. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tics.2015.08.005

Legare, C. H., Wen, N. J., Herrmann, P. A., & White- house, H. (2015). Imitative flexibility and the develop- ment of cultural learning. Cognition, 142, 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.020

Lew-Levy, S., Reckin, R., Lavi, N., Crist�obal-Azkarate, J., & Ellis-Davies, K. (2017). How do hunter-gatherer chil- dren learn subsistence skills? Human Nature. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12110-017-9302-2

2286 Legare, Clegg, and Wen

Lombrozo, T. (2013). Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Edu- cation, 33, 5.

Mesoudi, A., Chang, L., Murray, K., & Lu, H. J. (2015). Higher frequency of social learning in China than in the West shows cultural variation in the dynamics of cultural evolution. Proceedings of Biological Sciences, 282, 20152209.

Nielsen, M., & Haun, D. (2016). Why developmental psy- chology is incomplete without comparative and cross- cultural perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371, 20150071. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0071

Nielsen, M., Haun, D. B. M., Kaertner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 162, 32–38.

Pagel, M. (2012). Evolution: Adapted to culture. Nature, 482, 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1038/482297a

Perry, S., Baker, M., Fedigan, L., Gros-Louis, J., Jack, K., MacKinnon, K. C., . . . Rose, L. (2003). Social conven- tions in wild white-faced capuchin monkeys: Evidence for traditions in a neotropical primate. Current Anthro- pology, 44, 241–268. https://doi.org/10.1086/345825

Plotnik, J. M., Lair, R., Suphachoksahakun, W., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2011). Elephants know when they need a help- ing trunk in a cooperative task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 5116–5121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101765108

Pradhan, G. R., Tennie, C., & van Schaik, C. P. (2012). Social organization and the evolution of cumulative technology in apes and hominins. Journal of Human Evo- lution, 63, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol. 2012.04.008

Rosati, A. G., & Warneken, F. (2016). How comparative psy- chology can shed light on human evolution: Response to Beran et al.’s discussion of “Cognitive capacities for cooking in chimpanzees.” Learning & Behavior, 44, 109–115. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-016-0220-7

Santos, L. R., & Rosati, A. G. (2015). The evolutionary roots of human decision making. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 66, 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- psych-010814-015310

Short, S. D., & Hawley, P. H. (2015). The effects of evolu- tion education: Examining attitudes toward and knowl- edge of evolution in college courses. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 147470491501300105

Shtulman, A., Neal, C., & Lindquist, G. (2016). Children’s ability to learn evolutionary explanations for biological adaptation. Early Education and Development, 27, 1222– 1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1154418

Terashima, H., & Hewlett, B. S. (2016). Social learning and innovation in contemporary hunter-gatherers. Springer. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/series/11816

van Leeuwen, E. J. C., Call, J., & Haun, D. (2014). Human children rely more on social information than chim- panzees do. Biology Letters, 10, 20140487. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0487

van Schaik, C. P., & Burkart, J. M. (2011). Social learning and evolution: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Phi- losophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366, 1008–1016. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb. 2010.0304

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301–1303. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 1121448

Watson-Jones, R. E., & Legare, C. H. (2016). The social functions of group rituals. Current Directions in Psycho- logical Science, 25(1), 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0963721415618486

Watson-Jones, R. E., Legare, C. H., Whitehouse, H., & Clegg, J. M. (2014). Task-specific effects of ostracism on imitative fidelity in early childhood. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.004

Wen, N. J., Herrmann, P. A., & Legare, C. H. (2016). Ritual increases children’s affiliation with in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.08.002

Wertz, A. E., & Wynn, K. (2014). Thyme to touch: Infants possess strategies that protect them from dangers posed by plants. Cognition, 130(1), 44–49. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.002

Whitehead, H., & Rendell, L. (2015). The cultural lives of whales and dolphins. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Whiten, Andrew (2017). Culture extends the scope of evo- lutionary biology in the great apes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7790–7797. http:// www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7790.

Whiten, A., & Erdal, D. (2012). The human socio-cogni- tive niche and its evolutionary origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367, 2119–2129. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb. 2012.0114

Evolutionary Developmental Psychology 2287

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.