Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T14:35:50.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Runaway Processes in Modern Human Culture

An Evolutionary Approach to Exaggerated Communication in Present Human Societies

from Part V - Evolution and Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2020

By
Ádám Miklósi  and
Veronika Konok
Edited by
Lance Workman ,
Will Reader  and
Jerome H. Barkow
Lance Workman
Affiliation:
University of South Wales
Will Reader
Affiliation:
Sheffield Hallam University
Jerome H. Barkow
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia
Get access

Summary

In biology, runaway selection has been proposed as an evolutionary mechanism to explain the emergence of exaggerated morphological and behavior features in animals. Such runaway processes usually manifest if there is a fundamental change in the constraints that control the emergence of a specific trait. Here, we argue that the exaggerated communication in modern humans is the expression of a biological feature that has been liberated from environmental control. Social evolution of humans has led to increased group size, which, in turn, selected for a biologically supported need for communication in order to continuously keep contact with an increasing number of group members. This selection process led eventually to the emergence of language a few tens of thousands of years ago. However, up to a few hundred years ago, spoken communication was limited by spatial and temporal constraints.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Behavior , pp. 211 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Abramson, M. J., Benke, G. P., Dimitriadis, C., et al. (2009). Mobile telephone use is associated with changes in cognitive function in young adolescents. Bioelectromagnetics, 30(8), 678–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.Google Scholar
American Society of Plastic Surgery. (2015). Plastic surgery procedural statistics. www.plasticsurgery.org/news/plastic-surgery-statistics.Google Scholar
Arnold, K., & Zuberbühler, K. (2006). The alarm-calling system of adult male putty-nosed monkeys, Cercopithecus nictitans martini. Animal Behaviour, 72(3), 643–653.Google Scholar
Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., et al. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21(3), 372–374.Google Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & McKenna, K. Y. A. (2004). The Internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 573–590.Google Scholar
Bivin, J. B., Mathew, P., Thulasi, P. C., & Philip, J. (2013). Nomophobia – Do we really need to worry about? Reviews of Progress, 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bruni, O., Sette, S., Fontanesi, L., et al. (2015). Technology use and sleep quality in preadolescence and adolescence. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 11(12), 1433–1441.Google Scholar
Byun, Y., Ha, M., Kwon, H., et al. (2013). Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59742.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Monographs in Population Biology, 16, 1–388.Google Scholar
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1990). How Monkeys See the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chielens, K., & Heylighen, F. (2005). Operationalization of meme selection criteria: Methodologies to empirically test memetic predictions. In Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Socially Inspired Computing (AISB’05). Hove: Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, pp. 14–20.Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370–379.Google Scholar
Clayton, R. B., Leshner, G., & Almond, A. (2015). The extended iSelf: The impact of iPhone separation on cognition, emotion, and physiology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
Csányi, V. (2000). The “human behavior complex” and the compulsion of communication: Key factors of human evolution. Semiotica, 128(3–4), 243–258.Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N., Butler, B., & Kraut, R. (2002). The quality of online social relationships. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 103–108.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K., & Pomiankowski, A. (2000). Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature, 406(6792), 186–188.Google Scholar
David-Barrett, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2016). Language as a coordination tool evolves slowly. Royal Society Open Science, 3(12), 160259.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation. In Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B., eds., Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 282–309.Google Scholar
Derks, D., Bos, A. E. R., & Grumbkow, J. (2007). Emoticons and social interaction on the Internet: The importance of social context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 842–849.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Dixson, A. F., Li, B., & Anderson, M. J. (2007). Studies of human physique and sexual attractiveness: Sexual preferences of men and women in China. American Journal of Human Biology, 19, 88–95.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Gossip, Grooming and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Cognitive constraints on the structure and dynamics of social networks. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 7–16.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2009). The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution. Annals of Human Biology, 36(5), 562–572.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Social cognition on the Internet: Testing constraints on social network size. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 367(1599), 2192–2201.Google Scholar
Ericsson, J. (2014). Ericsson mobility report. https://edna.iea-4e.org/files/otherfiles/0000/0438/11_-_Ericsson_Mobility_Report_-_Patrik_Cerwall.pdf.Google Scholar
Ezoe, S., & Toda, M. (2013). Relationships of loneliness and mobile phone dependence with Internet addiction in Japanese medical students. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(6), 407–412.Google Scholar
Facebook. (2016). Facebook Reports Third Quarter 2016. https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_financials/2016/Q3/3.-Facebook-Reports-Third-Quarter-2016-Results.pdf.Google Scholar
Fan, J., Dai, W., Liu, F., & Wu, J. (2005). Visual perception of male body attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1560), 219–226.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Weege, B., Manning, J. T., & Trivers, R. (2014). Body symmetry and physical strength in human males. American Journal of Human Biology, 26(5), 697–700.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139(3), 603–622.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: A comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 731–746.Google Scholar
Frein, S. T., Jones, S. L., & Gerow, J. E. (2013). Computers in human behavior when it comes to Facebook there may be more to bad memory than just multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2179–2182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getty, T. (2006). Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(2), 83–88.Google Scholar
Go, A. S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V. L., et al. (2013). Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2013 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(1), e6–e245.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144(4), 517–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haufe, C. (2007). Sexual selection and mate choice in evolutionary psychology. Biology & Philosophy, 23(1), 115–128.Google Scholar
Herman, L. M. (1987). Receptive competencies of language-trained animals. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 17, 1–60.Google Scholar
Hickok, G., Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. S. (1996). The neurobiology of sign language and its implications for the neural basis of language. Nature, 381(6584), 699–702.Google Scholar
Hill, G. E., & Montgomerie, R. (1994). Plumage colour signals nutritional condition in the house finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 258(1351), 47–52.Google Scholar
Johnston, V. S., & Franklin, M. (1993). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(3), 183–199.Google Scholar
Kautiainen, S., Koivusilta, L., Lintonen, T., Virtanen, S. M., & Rimpelä, A. (2005). Use of information and communication technology and prevalence of overweight and obesity among adolescents. International Journal of Obesity, 29(8), 925–933.Google Scholar
Kemp, S. (2014). Social, Digital and Mobile in 2015. http://zenithmalaysia.com/infobank/Digital_social_and_mobile_in_2015_Executive_summary.pdf.Google Scholar
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., et al. (2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140–144.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., & Karpinski, A. C. (2010). Facebook and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237–1245.Google Scholar
Klemmer, E. T., & Snyder, F. W. (1972). Measurement of time spent communicating. Journal of Communication, 22(2), 142–158.Google Scholar
Konok, V., Pogány, Á., & Miklósi, Á. (2017). Mobile attachment: Separation from the mobile induces physiological and behavioural stress and attentional bias to separation-related stimuli. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 228–239.Google Scholar
Kramer, S., Zebrowitz, L. A., San Giovanni, J. P., & Sherak, B. (1995). Infant preferences for attractiveness and babyfaceness. In Bardy, B. G., Bootsma, R. J., & Guillard, Y., eds., Studies in Perception and Action III. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 389–392.Google Scholar
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., et al. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.Google Scholar
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addiction – A review of the psychological literature. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(12), 3528–3552.Google Scholar
Lande, R. (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Evolution, 78(6), 3721–3725.Google Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., et al. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.Google Scholar
Lavie, C. J., Milani, R. V, & Ventura, H. O. (2009). Obesity and cardiovascular disease: Risk factor, paradox, and impact of weight loss. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 53(21), 1925–1932.Google Scholar
Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and Satisfaction with Life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343–350.Google Scholar
Levitas, D. (2013). Always Connected: How Smartphones And Social Keep Us Engaged. Framingham, MA: International Data Corporation (IDC).Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Preferences for symmetry in human faces in two cultures: Data from the UK and the Hadza, an isolated group of hunter–gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 274(1629), 3113–3117.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). The many faces of research on face perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1634–1637.Google Scholar
Logicalis (2016). The age of digital enlightenment. www.uk.logicalis.com/globalassets/united-kingdom/microsites/real-time-generation/realtime-generation-2016-report.pdf.Google Scholar
Lui, K. F. H., & Wong, A. C.-N. (2012). Does media multitasking always hurt? A positive correlation between multitasking and multisensory integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 647–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lycett, J. E., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2000). Mobile phones as lekking devices among human males. Human Nature, 11(1), 93–104.Google Scholar
Lyn, H. (2012). Apes and the Evolution of Language: Taking Stock of 40 Years of Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lyon, B. E., & Montgomerie, R. (2012). Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 367(1600), 2266–2273.Google Scholar
Lyon, B. E., Eadie, J. M., & Hamilton, L. D. (1994). Parental choice selects for ornamental plumage in American coot chicks. Nature, 371, 240–243.Google Scholar
Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458.Google Scholar
Maples, W. C., DeRosier, W., Hoenes, R., Bendure, R., & Moore, S. (2008). The effects of cell phone use on peripheral vision. Optometry – Journal of the American Optometric Association, 79(1), 36–42.Google Scholar
Mason, N. A., Shultz, A. J., & Burns, K. J. (2014). Elaborate visual and acoustic signals evolve independently in a large, phenotypically diverse radiation of songbirds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1788), 20140967.Google Scholar
Masters, R. K., Reither, E. N., Powers, D. A., et al. (2013). The impact of obesity on US mortality levels: The importance of age and cohort factors in population estimates. American Journal of Public Health, 103(10), 1895–1901.Google Scholar
Mennella, J. A. (2014). Ontogeny of taste preferences: Basic biology and implications for health. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(3), 704S–711S.Google Scholar
Mesch, G. S. (2006). Family relations and the Internet: Exploring a family boundaries approach. Journal of Family Communication, 6(2), 119–138.Google Scholar
Minear, M., Brasher, F., Mccurdy, M., Lewis, J., & Younggren, A. (2013). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and impulsiveness in heavy media multitaskers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1274–1281.Google Scholar
Møller, A. P. (1992). Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature, 357(6375), 238–240.Google Scholar
Moore, A. J., Brodie, E. D., & Wolf, J. B. (1997). Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process: I. Direct and indirect genetic effects of social interactions. Evolution, 51(5), 1352–1362.Google Scholar
Nakamaru, M., & Dieckmann, U. (2009). Runaway selection for cooperation and strict-and-severe punishment. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 257(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Nasar, J., Hecht, P., & Wener, R. (2008). Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(1), 69–75.Google Scholar
Nasar, J. L., & Troyer, D. (2013). Pedestrian injuries due to mobile phone use in public places. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 57, 91–95.Google Scholar
Nie, N. H., & Hillygus, D. S. (2002). The impact of Internet use on sociability: Time-diary findings. IT & Society, 1(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect and mating mutualism of partner choice in cooperation. Behavioral Ecology, 35(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587.Google Scholar
Pachucki, M. A., Jacques, P. F., & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Social network concordance in food choice among spouses, friends, and siblings. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11), 2170–2177.Google Scholar
Pennay, D. (2006). ATSB Research and Analysis Report. Road Safety Consultant Report CR 229, Community Attitudes to Road Safety – Wave 19. Canberra: Australian Transport Safety Bureau.Google Scholar
Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 229–241.Google Scholar
Pepperberg, I. M. (2010). Functional vocalizations by an African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 55(2), 139–160.Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgements of female attractiveness. Nature, 368(6468), 239–242.Google Scholar
Perrin, A. (2015). Social Media Usage: 2005–2015 (October), 2005–2015. Pew Research Center. October 2015. www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/2015/Social-Networking-Usage-2005-2015.Google Scholar
Pilley, J. W., & Reid, A. K. (2011). Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behavioural Processes, 86(2), 184–195.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. G. B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2011). Use of social network sites and instant messaging does not lead to increased offline social network size, or to emotionally closer relationships with offline network members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(4), 253–258.Google Scholar
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, A., & Csányi, V. (2005). Human listeners are able to classify dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in different situations. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119(2), 136–144.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (2016). A gradualist scenario for language evolution: Precise linguistic reconstruction of early human (and Neandertal) grammars. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1714.Google Scholar
Pryke, S. R., Andersson, S., & Lawes, M. J. (2001). Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: Female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution, 55(7), 1452–1463.Google Scholar
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., Dehaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848.Google Scholar
Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336(7), 453–458.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., et al. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 31–46.Google Scholar
Rideout, V., & Saphir, M. (2012). Social Media, Social Life: How Teens View Their Digital Lives. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. G. B., Dunbar, R. I. M., Pollet, T. V., & Kuppens, T. (2009). Exploring variation in active network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks, 31, 138–146.Google Scholar
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 948–958.Google Scholar
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicología Educativa 17, 163–177.Google Scholar
Rosser, S. V. (1992). Biology and Feminism. A Dynamic Interaction. New York: Twayne Publishers.Google Scholar
Salesforce Marketing Cloud (2014). 2014 mobile behavior report. https://brandcdn.exacttarget.com/sites/exacttarget/files/deliverables/etmc-2014mobilebehaviorreport.pdf.Google Scholar
Schassburger, R. M. (1993). Vocal Communication in the Timber Wolf, Canis lupus, Linnaeus: Structure, Motivation, and Ontogeny. Berlin: Paul Parey Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, H., Edelman, A., Falkenstern, M., & Stewart, C. (2010). The associations among computer-mediated communication, relationships, and well-being. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 299–306.Google Scholar
Scissors, L., Burke, M., & Wengrovitz, S. (2016). What’s in a Like? Attitudes and behaviors around receiving Likes on Facebook. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing – CSCW, 16, 1499–1508.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. A., & Nowicki, S. (2005). The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sharma, N., Sharma, P., Sharma, N., & Wavare, R. (2015). Rising concern of nomophobia amongst Indian medical students. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 3(3), 705–707.Google Scholar
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1994). A critical review of philosophical work on the units of selection problem. Philosophy of Science, 61(4), 534–555.Google Scholar
Stald, G. (2008). Mobile identity: Youth, identity, and mobile communication media. In Buckingham, D., ed., Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 143–164.Google Scholar
Strano, M. (2008). User descriptions and interpretations of self-presentation through Facebook profile images. Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
Számadó, S., & Szathmáry, E. (2006). Selective scenarios for the emergence of natural language. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(10), 555–561.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 452–460.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Møller, A. P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 72(4), 497–548.Google Scholar
Uzzell, T., & Pilbeam, D. (1971). Phyletic divergence dates of hominoid primates: A comparison of fossil and molecular data. Evolution, 25(4), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Eijnden, R. J., Meerkerk, G.-J., Vermulst, A. A., Spijkerman, R., & Engels, R. C. (2008). Online communication, compulsive internet use, and psychosocial well-being among adolescents: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 655–665.Google Scholar
Verhulst, S., Dieleman, S. J., & Parmentier, H. K. (1999). A tradeoff between immunocompetence and sexual ornamentation in domestic fowl. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(8), 4478–4481.Google Scholar
Vodafone (2013). Digital lives: How do teenagers in the UK navigate their digital world? www.vodafone.com/content/dam/vodafone/parents/assets_2013/pdf/digital_lives_report.pdf.Google Scholar
Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?: Social networks, participation, and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436–455.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1979). Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 123(4), 222–234.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. S., Presgraves, D. C., & Crymes, L. (1998). Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature, 391(6664), 276–279.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 585–608.Google Scholar
Wolf, J. B., Brodie, E. D., & Moore, A. J. (1999). Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. American Naturalist, 153(3), 254–266.Google Scholar
Wood, B., & Harrison, T. (2011). The evolutionary context of the first hominins. Nature, 470(7334), 347–352.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.Google Scholar
Zephoria (2015). The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistics – Updated October 2015. https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics.Google Scholar
Zheng, F., Gao, P., He, M., et al. (2014). Association between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents: A population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14, 1022.Google Scholar
Zuberbühler, K. (2012). Communication in nonhuman primates. In Vonk, J. & Shakelford, T. K., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 320–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×