Mistrust of outsiders starts early
Image: Eric Isselee/iStock
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Psychologists have long known that many people are prejudiced towards others based on group affiliations, be they racial, ethnic, religious, or even political. However, we know far less about why people are prone to prejudice in the first place. New research, using monkeys, suggests that the roots lie deep in our evolutionary past.
Yale graduate student Neha Mahajan, along with a team of psychologists, traveled to Cayo Santiago, an uninhabited island southeast of Puerto Rico also known as “Monkey Island,” in order to study the behavior of rhesus monkeys. Like humans, rhesus monkeys live in groups and form strong social bonds. The monkeys also tend to be wary of those they perceive as potentially threatening.
To figure out whether monkeys distinguish between insiders (i.e. those who belong to their group) and outsiders (i.e. those who don’t belong), the researchers measured the amount of time the monkeys stared at the photographed face of an insider versus outsider monkey. Across several experiments, they found that the monkeys stared longer at the faces of outsiders. This would suggest that monkeys were more wary of outsider faces.
However, it is also possible that outsiders simply evoke more curiosity. To rule this out, the researchers took advantage of the fact that male rhesus monkeys leave their childhood groups once they reach reproductive age. This allowed the researchers to pair familiar outsider faces (monkeys that had recently left the group) with less familiar insider faces (monkeys that had recently joined the group). When presented with these pairs, the monkeys continued to stare longer at outsider faces, even though they were more familiar with them. The monkeys were clearly making distinctions based on group membership.
Mahajan and her team also devised a method for figuring out whether the monkeys harbor negative feelings towards outsiders. They created a monkey-friendly version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). For humans, the IAT is a computer-based task that measures unconscious biases by determining how quickly we associate different words (e.g. “good” and “bad”) with specific groups (e.g. faces of either African-Americans or European-Americans). If a person is quicker to associate “bad” with African-American faces compared to European-American faces, this suggests that he or she harbors an implicit bias against African-Americans.
For the rhesus monkeys, the researchers paired the photos of insider andoutsider monkeys with either good things, such as fruits, or bad things, such as spiders. When an insider face was paired with fruit, or an outsider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys quickly lost interest. But when an insider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys looked longer at the photographs. Presumably, the monkeys found it confusing when something good was paired with something bad. This suggests that monkeys not only distinguish between insiders and outsiders, they associate insiders with good things and outsiders with bad things.
Overall, the results support an evolutionary basis for prejudice. Some researchers believe prejudice is unique to humans, since it seems to depend on complex thought processes. For example, past studies have found that people are likely to display prejudice after being reminded of their mortality, or after receiving a blow to their self-esteem. Since only humans are capable of contemplating their deaths or their self-image, these studies reinforce the view that only humans are capable of prejudice. But the behavior of the rhesus monkeys implies that our basic tendency to see the world in terms of “us” and “them” has ancient origins.
See what we're tweeting about
32 Comments
Add CommentThe subtitle to this article is extremely misleading.The belief that there are biological human race*s* is a racist myth in itself. Race, or subspecies, requires that the genetic distance between one population and another to be significantly greater than the genetic variability within the population themselves. This, however, is not the case for these monkeys in questions. Furthermore, this is not the case for homo sapien sapiens . There is only one human race. There is regional genetic variation, but this variation doesn't even come close to qualifying or reaching the magnitude to differentiate the human species into multiple subspecies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes anybody have an idea of what we will lose or what will be the side effects of reprograming or elliminating the brain circuitry that sustains this and other suposedly undesirable thoughts and behaviours ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Ramognino, your thinking is flawed. Humans react to phenotype (how our genetics make us look) not our genotype (the actual code within our genes) A subset of a species requires no “genetic distance”, as you say, to react to another subset based on phenotype or any other external factor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, I strongly doubt that the methodology, the presumptions and the conclusions of the research team are valid. My beliefs or my "Weltanschauung" play no role in me rejecting the team's interpretation, only the basics of scientific work in social research are sufficient to express doubts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy interpretation of the results would sound very different ...
Last I heard wolves don't like strangers - neither do dogs. I had a dog that I took to work with me. I worked in a small shop that had customers come in to drop off equipment for repair. The dog stayed under a work bench. She was very gentle, friendly, even a little shy. She had never been around a lot of people before. She was less then a year old. One day she went ballistic. I couldn't understand what was wrong with her. The customer left and she went back under the work bench. The customer was black. I knew the customer well and later he told me that dogs always seemed to dislike him even the ones in his own neighborhood. He never had a dog when he was growing up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWolves and dogs, their much-mutated relatives, have stronger tolerance for meeting strangers before 18 months of age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a growing body of observation of discriminiation (in its normal, original sense) by the species.
Wolves (I share significant activity with a wolf who measures physiologically to have no hybridization) have clear behavioral characteristics.
The particular wolf with whom I am familiar responded to a threat toward me by a Rottweiler. After this occurrence(a little dustup, shall we say), he became a Rottweiler racist for 2 years, attacking old/young/male/female Rottweilers. He learned as he achieved what is regarded as cognitive maturity - age 5, to temper this racism! This on his own. Wolves exhibit attributes like third-order theory of mind, and have sophisticated intentional communicative behaviors.
They have strong memories and orientation skills, clearly showing preference and varying levels of comfort in certain surroundings (dog owners may have observed this in spades!).
Wolves and dogs evaluate and habituate to humans to varying extents, to their own and other species as well as others. After establishing relationships, you will note that they tend to attempt to create social hierarchies.
They do this for extremely valid reasons - strength, determination, skill, and social "policing" as it were, are necessary in a cursorial predator that in nature, lives and thrives on the results of favoring superiority in these characteristics.
Psychologists (I studied the discipline intensively in academia) too often attempt to discriminate between humans and other social species on the basis of specious (read: minor) characteristics, like complex vocal language.
Imagination is not encompassed completely through verbal acuity. As we see in wolves shot from the air, the last survivor rolls over and begs for mercy in the most abject position used for communication. Trapped wolves have been reported to show friendliness and apparently hope for social response from humans discovering their plight, as well as something akin to hate, blame, or anger. Such individualism should suggest something to all.
Hunting spiders stalk while out of sight of prey. All spiders discriminate among prey, varying their methods of approach.
A psychologist or sociologist ignorant of brain/neural response, elevating humans on some Great Chain of Being, might recognize that a most adaptive response could be consciousness development. Mammalian brains process memory and much response through emotional circuitry.
Primatologists, as well, often believe, irrationally that they are studying an elevated species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have seen studies of various birds, wild and captive, that show discrimination.
Discrimination as looked at in evolutionary psychology, is highly useful:
For any individual to survive and thus have occasion to reproduce, it does well to fear (this measurable cognition occurs in many, many species).
While the tenet of William of Ockham may be useful, we should also be aware that useful traits and structures (I speak of brain and neural structures) tend to be conserved; and since evolution often hijacks or extends use of a structure, we can expect it likely that any traits, cognitions, behaviors we have may well have arisen some time ago. 55 to 65 million years is not a long time for highly useful traits or structures to be retained.
Perhaps social species have convergent traits - BUT, with similar hormonal, neural, and larger-scale structures so alike added, the evidence would tend to point toward inheritance in speciesism, racism, individual taste, and recognitions!
We are all relatives, and do not yet comprehend the full extent of our heritage.
On the rather extraordinary claim that only humans fear death in the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust in passing I was reading http://www.wildcarebayarea.org/site/PageServer?pagename=eNews_April2011_landingpage#myopathy :
"Capture myopathy is a syndrome of acute or chronic degradation of muscle tissue resulting from stressful activity such as pursuit, capture or handling of a susceptible animal. Also called exertional myopathy, it is a condition that is characterized by damage to the muscles from an increased production of lactic acid when oxygen is depleted and anaerobic metabolism occurs. Exertional myopathy can occur without exercise, too. Capture myopathy can occur both during physical and chemical (tranquilizer) restraint. It occurs in most animals, but especially in ungulates like deer and bison, and prey animals like rabbits. It has been reported in birds, notably cranes and waterfowl, and even in fish.
Fear and anxiety, excessive body heat and too much adrenaline will result in capture myopathy. There are four categories: peracute, acute, subacute and chronic...."
(Go to the link for description. Note: Conversely, habituated animals develop physiological responses associated with trust)
"Dr. Barbara Natterson-Horowitz is the Director of Imaging for the UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, the Associate Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and the cardiovascular consultant to the Los Angeles Zoo. Dr. Natterson Horowitz lectures frequently on One Health and the advancements in clinical care through collaborations between MDs and DVMs.
Speaking at the Wildlife and Aquatic Animal Medicine Club of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine in February, Dr. Natterson-Horowitz discussed capture myopathy and it’s relevance to people. This clinical phenomenon, known to veterinarians for decades, may help shed light on human syndromes such as the recently-identified Tako Tsubo Cardiomyopathy – in which restraint (such as hospital restraints), terror and fear of impending death can cause chemical responses in the heart. She went on to describe many other disorders that affect both people and other animals. In 2012, Knopf will publish Dr. Natterson Horowitz and Kathryn Bowers’ book, Zoobiquity: A Species-Spanning Approach to Medicine.
It is clear that there are many things we can learn from wildlife."
Monkeys stare longer at images of "outsiders" when they are paired with a pleasant stimulus. Therefore, monkeys are prejudiced. Therefore, human prejudice is an evolutionarily conserved trait. QED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis of course follows along the same lines as the classical scientific syllogism in support of God's existence:
If God did not exist, then existence would not exist. Therefore, God must exist. Therefore, He does exist. QED.
This was an intriguing article and it has generated some interesting comments. We are a long way from having all the facts about racism and other types of discrimination. I hope our abilities to reason can win out over whatever our evolutionary inclinations might be in regards t this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was most disappointed by a statement, seemingly of 'fact', in the forth paragraph: "Since only humans are capable of contemplating their deaths or their self-image...". While this might be true...I have no idea how we would ever determine that to be the case. Many animals (at least seem to) mourn the deaths of their companions, so it does not seem at all impossible they would also 'think' about their own mortality.
At one time anthropomorphizing was ridiculed, and there was widespread belief that no other 'animals' could have any of the kinds of feelings people have. Our studies have shown this is not entirely true, but this article certainly points out our abiding inclination toward anthropocentrism. Perhaps that is our most dangerous 'ism'.
It is time we stopped believing we are the center, and even the purpose, of the universe. If we don't, we might just bring about our own downfall sooner rather than later.
Well simple-minded me doesn't understand how two books can cause such death and destruction right now. These two books which are racist are Bible and Quran. The funny thing is the Quran (Sura 3:3) accepts the Bible. Doesn't make monkey sense to me. I stare at these two books a lot and can't even talk to anyone about this. The Bible can't accept the Quran, you know. Can you figure all this racism out? People wanted to kill me because of all this. Scary racism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to track our heritage, read Genesis 10. Prejudice is a characteristic of tribes...human and animal. We like us and are suspicious of others. Ramognino is right in that 'races' are an arificial notion. We're humans...that's why we can interbreed...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Since only humans are capable of contemplating their deaths or their self-image, these studies reinforce the view that only humans are capable of prejudice." This premise is flawed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Mr. Comexman, since there is clear and abundant evidence that the homo sapiens specie at least at this point in our evolutionary stage responds mostly to the phenotype and not the genotype; remember that human beings and other higher primates evolved from a quadruped ape like predecessor, evidence of this is found in the pattern of the venous valves which general purpose is the prevention of the abnormal reflux of venous blood; I also think that the authors of the original article should explore in deep the evolutionary pattern of development of the human brain; also they should have incorporated the ample research on the evolution of the olfactory system in humans, also a well conducted analytical review of "pack behavior" in wolves as well as in humans would have provided another perspective to the so call "racist genetic prototype". A final thought is to remind everyone that the evolutionary process of mankind is still not complete; therefore we hopefully have some time to re-shape those negative traits that delay our evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDouglas Matamoros, Ph.D.(CookieMonster)
We may not need to go as far up the chain as chimps or wolves to find racism. My wife and I have some female Suffolk sheep(ewes)with black faces. Some years ago they shared a field with a Suffolk ram (black face) as well as a Romney ram (white face). Being the promiscuous animals they are, they mated with both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome black faced Suffolk ewes subsequently gave birth to twin lambs, one with a black face and one with a white (or speckled)face. Our racist Moms let only the black faced lamb lamb suckle,and refused any twin with a white or a speckled face - even to the extent of attacking it. Those who had twins with no black faces, only white or speckled,reluctantly fed the speckled one (better than nothing?) but still rejected the one with the white face. However, those who had single lambs and thus no choice seemed happy to accepted whatever they gave birth to.
My wife and I had to hand feed the rejects or they would have died. Can anyone explain this?
Ramognino, I'm afraid you're confused. Race is not the same as subspecies. Dogs (canis lupus familiaris) are a subspecies of wolf (canis lupus). BREEDS of dogs are equivalent to races of human.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the genetics you're also confused. Again, race is not define on a basis of genetic variation within a group versus genetic variation between the group average and other group averages. This would likely eliminate dog breeds as a valid scientific classification, though any vet will tell you the subtle differences are important, and any medical doctor or pharmacist will tell you the differences between human races also matter.
Although it is sometimes interpreted differently, a good parallel is geologic rock classification. A granite can be closer in composition to a granodiorite than it is to other granites. It can have properties more similar to granodiorites than other granites. But if it contains a key mineral it is classed as a granite.
Biologists and geneticists on the whole utilize the divisions of race although some fashionably reject it.
To quote the famous Richard Dawkins:
"It is an article of passionate faith among "politically correct" biologists and anthropologists that brain size has no connection with intelligence; that intelligence has nothing to do with genes; and that genes are probably nasty fascist things anyway."
Seventy years ago, my father a militant anti-racist, taught us that anti-racism was a daily triumph of our ethical convictions over our feelings. (I suspect my father, a devout Catholic, have not been evolutionary, the topic was not on the agenda at the time)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Individuals seem to divide others into four groups: kin, collaborators, competitors and neutrals. When they encounter someone, individuals look for signals of belonging to one of these groups. This gives them a clue about benefits and risks they may expect from the encounter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Race is only one possible factor in classifying others, but there are many others (such as musical preferences, dress and political preferences)
3. There is substantial variation among individuals in how they treat others that belong to the four groups.
4. We need to understand these issues in order to combat their negative, and often terrible, implications, and to enhance their positive consequences.
See Avner Ben-Ner and Amit Kramer, Personality and altruism in the dictator game: Relationship to giving to kin, collaborators, competitors, and neutrals (in press), Personality and Individual Differences
Avoidance can have a number of benefits for fitness. These people need to read the literature published in the 20th century so they do not reinvent the wheel. I would recommend Ashley Montagu's Man's Most Dangerous Myth published originally in the 1940s but available now in paperback. Sigerist (an MD) wrote a number of articles on animal and disease in the 50s and summarized research of avoidance in his two best known books, see: Sigerist, Henry E., (1951) A History of Medicine, 2 volumes, Oxford University Press, New York.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSigerist, Henry E., (1962) Civilization and Disease, Chicago, U. of Chicago Pess. People really need to do some real research instead of searching the internet and thinking their ideas are original.
Niccolo Caldararo, Ph.D.
Dept. of Anthropology
San Francisco State University
I wonder about posting the same human face in different natural colors, whether the monkeys have an antipathy to whites, or blacks, if that can be determined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent excellent comments. Fear and avoidance of unknown or "different" individuals is an evolutionary adaptation for self-preservation and not racism. Likewise, moving to the other side of the street when a group of individuals with hanging baggy pants, tattoos from face, neck and the rest of the body, chains hanging, you are not racist, you are responding to normal self-preservation programming, without which,we would not be here today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for making my day. I've had a bad day as days go for me. But tonite's article giving racists and bigots an excuse for their behavior as 'being born that way' just cracked me up. I can't stop laughing. Imagine now the court case where a homosexual, who claims he was born that way and can't help himself, is suing someone who called him some slang term and his defense is this article, claiming he too was born that way and can't help himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the funniest dang thing I've read in years when one ponders the unintended consequences on society. I can imagine some southern lawyer already planning his case for the KKK, claiming they were born that way and deserve special civil rights protections.
barkleypontree.blogspot.com
"Race, or subspecies, requires that the genetic distance between one population and another to be significantly greater than the genetic variability within the population themselves. This, however, is not the case for these monkeys in questions. Furthermore, this is not the case for homo sapien sapiens . "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is complete nonsense.
See: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2010/08/connect-dots.html
And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pNn3gOELAg
And: http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/getfile.php?file=Race.pdf
"Race, or subspecies, requires that the genetic distance between one population and another to be significantly greater than the genetic variability within the population themselves. This, however, is not the case for these monkeys in questions. Furthermore, this is not the case for homo sapien sapiens ."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndividuals also have more genetic diversity than biological families, ergo, families don't exist. Your line of thought is silly. What differences there are between races are important because these differences, more often than not, were selected for. You should read Cochran and Harpending's 10,000 Year Explosion.
This is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is ideology in search of pseudoscientic justification.
The words "racist" and "racism" are themselves inaccurate when discussing what should be referred to as tribalism. The term "racist" was invented by the American communist party in the 1920s for politcal reasons. Tribalism is part of Human nature; belonging to a certain tribe/culture gives meaning to one's existence, and it will always be so. The left need to stop trying to force the multi-culturalist ideology onto the various tribes of the world and let them be who they want to be. The end result would be much less tribal tension. and by extension, less war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have been helping Africa and Haiti for 300 yrs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are worse than ever. Then comes Darwin and says:
"Blacks are not Human but a different African species"
Maybe our efforts to make Humans out of Blacks is wrong.
We should let Blacks be what they are, where they are.
An excellent point. It seems psychologist forget we are part of a very diverse animal world and that we see many animals with a variety of cognitive abilities that are parallel to ours. See my article on the SSRN on human uniqueness (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=821035).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDuring the era of the 50's and early 60's when the term institutional racism was more common than it is today, the days of Jim Crow and Segregation ruled the houses of government and general society. The idea that a White person not being racist was taboo, American society insisted on segregation and the ideology of White supermacy. This need for a racist ideology further extended to Native Peoples, Asians, Arabs and various ethnic groups of East Europeans who were Slavs and Russians. This social experiment that seems to be a throw back to the 50's tries to justify racism by proving that it is inherient in the nature. Don't worry it is natural to be a racist, even monkies are racist and prejudiced in the natural world. Why fight it. I know of many Blacks that can't stand White people, and some can't stand Latinos, either. How does this "study" justifies the ethnic hatreds that is ocurring throughout Africa? What do you call ethnic cleansing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSegregation any one?
This seems to be a study of xenophobia, not prejudice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrejudice, as the name implies, involves the expectation of behavior, not ignorance. Prejudice can just as well exist within the known group, no matter how unfounded in fact and experience.
This seems to be a study of xenophobia, not prejudice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrejudice, as the name implies, involves the expectation of behavior, not ignorance. Prejudice can just as well exist within the known group, no matter how unfounded in fact and experience.
This seems to be a study of xenophobia, not prejudice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrejudice, as the name implies, involves the expectation of behavior, not ignorance. Prejudice can just as well exist within the known group, no matter how unfounded in fact and experience.