Using an evolutionary approach to improve predictive ability in the social sciences: Property, the endowment effect, and law
Using an evolutionary approach to improve predictive ability in the social sciences: Property, the endowment effect, and law
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.01.001
复制
发表时间：
2023-05-23
影响因子：
5.1
通讯作者：
Jones，Owen D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brosnan，Sarah F.;Jones，Owen D.
从其他学科的角度来看，进化方法通常提供解释和一致性，而不是帮助解决离散问题。我们认为，更多的后一类例子将有助于学科综合和知识的进步。在这里，我们描述了一个20年的研究弧，以证明解决问题的效用的进化的角度来看，作为一个案例研究，集中在一个特定的认知偏见-禀赋效应-这对法律的影响。法律的系统通常假设人类做出的决定是实质上理性的、一致的，并且旨在最大化他们自己的福祉。但普遍存在的认知偏见破坏了这一点，表明人类总是做出似乎违反理性和/或他们自己最大利益的决定。尽管进行了数十年的研究，但在理解这些偏见存在的原因方面几乎没有进展。我们和其他学者一样，都认为许多认知偏见可能是为了适应前现代条件而进化的，进化上的突然变化往往使它们与当前条件不匹配，促使我们产生情境上的非理性结果。在这里，我们讨论了我们的数据测试假设从这一角度在人类和非人类灵长类动物，并考虑它如何推进我们的理解的禀赋效应狭义和认知偏见一般-包括那些相关的法律和政策。
From the perspective of other disciplines, evolutionary approaches more often provide explanation and coherence than they help to solve discrete problems. We believe that more examples of the latter sort will help both with disciplinary synthesis and with the advance of knowledge. Here we describe a 20-year arc of research to demonstrate the problem-solving utility of an evolutionary perspective by focusing, as a case study, on a particular cognitive bias – the endowment effect – that has implications for law. Legal systems often assume that humans make decisions that are substantively rational, consistent, and aimed at maximizing their own wellbeing. But prevalent cognitive biases disrupt this, showing that humans consistently make decisions that seem to violate rationality and/or their own best interests. And despite decades of research, there has been little progress in understanding why these biases exist. We are among the scholars who have converged on the idea that many cognitive biases may have evolved as adaptations to pre-modern conditions, the evolutionarily sudden changes from which often leave them mis-matched to current conditions, prompting us to situationally irrational outcomes. Here, we discuss our data testing hypotheses derived from this perspective in both humans and non-human primates and consider how it has advanced our understanding of both the endowment effect narrowly and cognitive biases generally – including those relevant to law and policy.