روانشناسی تکاملی تنها رویکرد تکاملی مولد برای درک رفتار مصرف کننده نیست
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|35731||2013||4 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 3, July 2013, Pages 400–403
I respond to Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas T. Kendrick (G&K) and Gad Saad's (S) defenses of the view that Consumer Studies would benefit from the appeal to evolution in all work aimed at understanding consumer behavior. I argue that G&K and S's reliance on one theoretical perspective, that of evolutionary psychology, limits their options. Further, I point out some specific problems with the theoretical perspective of evolutionary psychology. Finally, I introduce some alternative evolutionary approaches to studying human behavior that could profitably be adopted in consumer research.
Human behavior is massively varied and complex. Charles Darwin was the first to appeal to evolution in an attempt to understand aspects of our behavior and many researchers now bring evolution to bear in this context. Evolutionary explanations of human behavior arise from a wide range of theoretical perspectives, for example, behavioral ecology, behavioral genetics, developmental psychobiology, ethology, evolutionary psychology, gene-culture co-evolution, niche construction, neuroendocrinology and sociobiology. There are quite distinct fault lines dividing some of these theoretical perspectives from one another (See e.g. Downes, 2001). There are debates between proponents of alternate evolutionary perspectives and these debates are often over how to understand key concepts within evolution such as adaptation. In my view, a more successful and productive pluralistic evolutionary approach to explaining human behavior will come after these debates have been resolved. In their respective pieces, Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas T. Kendrick (2013; hereafter G&K) and Gad Saad (2013; hereafter, S) defend the view that consumer research would benefit from the appeal to evolution in all work aimed at understanding consumer behavior. The evolutionary consumer research project is well underway, as citations in the G&K and S articles indicate. Saad's contribution to this developing sub-discipline already includes three books on evolution, consumption, and business (e.g., Saad, 2007). It is important to note that both G&K and S approach the notion of evolutionary-based consumption from different perspectives within evolutionary psychology. Although somewhat different, both of their approaches owe most to the form of evolutionary psychology articulated and defended by Tooby and Cosmides (1992). Influenced by Tooby and Cosmides, G&K and S anticipate critics among their peers in the mold of social constructivists that Tooby, Cosmides and their colleagues focused their critical attacks on. This may be an appropriate stance in contemporary consumer research but further a field, debates about evolutionary psychology or the appeal to evolution in studying human behavior are much more wide ranging and have many dimensions. For example, many who bring evolution to bear on human behavior have culture at the forefront of their theoretical framework but it would be premature to dismiss their work on the grounds that they adhere to social constructivism (See e.g. Henrich, 2011). In this commentary, I first discuss G&K and S's commitment to variants of the theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology. Next, I examine one aspect of this framework, which I refer to as “modular nativism.” After that, I go on to discuss recent work on waist–hip ratios to illustrate the impact that different evolutionary approaches can have on our understanding of human behavior. To conclude, I share G&K and S's enthusiasm for bringing evolution to bear on our understanding of human behavior. However, I also encourage them and others in consumer research to draw from other available evolutionary approaches to human behavior rather than drawing on a specific variant of evolutionary psychology.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
My comments here should not be read as arguing that evolution should not be involved in explanations of consumer behavior. Instead, I hope to encourage those working in consumer research to expand the range of evolutionary resources brought to bear on understanding consumer behavior. This pluralistic approach could reap more dividends than the one current defended by G&K and S, which, I have argued relies on only one limited theoretical framework.