Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-25T22:02:14.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A broader theory of cooperation can better explain “purity”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2023

Oliver Scott Curry Open the ORCID record for Oliver Scott Curry [Opens in a new window]  and
Daniel Sznycer Open the ORCID record for Daniel Sznycer [Opens in a new window]
Oliver Scott Curry
Affiliation:
School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Daniel Sznycer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USAoliver.curry@anthro.ox.ac.uk; www.oliverscottcurry.com daniel.sznycer@okstate.edu; www.sznycerlab.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-control provides one cooperative explanation for “purity.” Other types of cooperation provide additional explanations. For example, individuals compete for status by displaying high-value social and sexual traits, which are moralised because they reduce the mutual costs of conflict. As this theory predicts, sexually unattractive traits are perceived as morally bad, aside from self-control. Moral psychology will advance more quickly by drawing on all theories of cooperation.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e300
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Buss, D. M., Durkee, P. K., Shackelford, T. K., Bowdle, B. F., Schmitt, D. P., Brase, G. L., … Trofimova, I. (2020). Human status criteria: Sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 979–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curry, O. S. (2007). The conflict-resolution theory of virtue. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W. P. (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. I, pp. 251–261). MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/moral-psychology-volume-1Google Scholar
Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In Shackelford, T. K. & Hansen, R. D. (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 27–51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. (2019). Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 societies. Current Anthropology, 60(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.1086/701478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H., Smith, E. A., & Bowles, S. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213, 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., DiMaggio, N., Schein, C., & Kachanoff, F. (2022). The problem of purity in moral psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 0(0), 108886832211247 41. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221124741Google Scholar
Huntingford, F. A., & Turner, A. K. (1987). Animal conflict. Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Parker, G. A. (1976). The logic of asymmetric contests. Animal Behaviour, 24, 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80110-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246, 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazur, A. (2005). Biosociology of dominance and deference. Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Preuschoft, S., & van Schaik, C. P. (2000). Dominance and communication: Conflict management in various social settings. In Aureli, F. & de Waal, F. B. M. (Eds.), Natural conflict resolution (pp. 77–105). University of California Press.Google Scholar
Riechert, S. E. (1998). Game theory and animal contests. In Dugatkin, L. A. & Reeve, H. K. (Eds.), Game theory and animal behavior (pp. 64–93). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sznycer, D., Al-Shawaf, L., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Curry, O. S., De Smet, D., Ermer, E., … Tooby, J. (2017). Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(8), 1874. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614389114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sznycer, D., Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Porat, R., Shalvi, S., & Halperin, E. (2016). Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2625–2630. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514699113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed