Thirdly, related to this, we might question Thornhill’s data on personality. Collectivism and Individualism have been found to be associated with Introversion (collectivism) and Extraversion (individualism). When comparisons are made within populations, those of Sub-Saharan African descent are consistently found to be the highest in Extraversion while Northeast Asians are found to be the lowest in it (see Levin, 2005). So, those evolved to the highest levels of parasite stress would appear to be, if anything, relatively individualistic, precisely the opposite of what Thornhill’s model would predict. This being so, it would appear that parasite stress is likely only a weak predictor of differences in ethnocentric behaviour.
Indeed, it could be argued that Thornhill’s assumption — that people in areas of high parasite stress would avoid strangers — is simply wrong. In an area of high parasite stress the population would need adaptations to survive the unpredictable parasites. This could be achieved by a high level of genetic diversity, allowing adaptations to the evolving parasites to continually develop, and this could in turn be achieved by a high level of friendliness to outsiders, not by ethnocentrism. Fourthly, it may be possible to explain these data more simply through Life History Theory, and we will now explore this and show that it is a more parsimonious explanation.
6. The Life History Theory Model of Ethnocentrism
Rushton (1995) examined the r–K continuum of evolutionary strategies and applied it to different human populations. At one end of the scale, the r-strategy (fast Life History Strategy) involves high reproductive rates, low levels of parental investment, and a fast life. This tends to develop in an ecology which is unstable but plentiful in resources. Due to the unpredictability of the environment, it would not be worthwhile for organisms to strongly adapt to that environment and, thus, a more successful strategy would be to have as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible. Such organisms rarely reach their maximum carrying capacity, because the environment is unpredictably dangerous and thus they are constantly being killed.
At the other end of the spectrum, a K-strategy (Slow Life History Strategy) involves lower reproductive rates, higher parental investment and a slower life. This tends to develop in environments which are stable. In such ecologies, r-strategists of the same species will not have sufficient predators and, accordingly, will breed until they have reached their environmental carrying capacity. When this occurs, they will have to start to compete with each other for scarce resources. They do this by diverting energy away from reproduction and towards competition within the species. The ones more likely to win this competition will be bigger, stronger, healthier, more intelligent, and more experienced. Accordingly, random mutations for these qualities will be selected for and, over generations, the entire species will become more adapted to the environment, increasingly breeding for quality rather than quantity. As such, a more stable ecology moves towards a K-strategy. In such an ecology, those who adopted an r-strategy may well find that none of their abundant offspring reach maturity at all.
As stated, Rushton argues that there are racial differences in Life History Strategy. Sub-Saharan Africans are argued to be the least K, Northeast Asians the most K, and ‘Caucasians’ (Europeans and South Asians) intermediate but closer to Northeast Asians. A summary of his findings can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Ranking of Races on Diverse Variables (Rushton, 2000b and other sources).
Variable
Measure
Mongoloids
Caucasoids
Negroids
Reference
Brain size
Autopsy data (cm3)
-
1,351
1,356
1,223
Rushton (2000b)
Endocrinal volume (cm3)
-
1,415
1,362
1,268
Rushton (2000b)
External head measures (cm3)
-
1,356
1,329
1,294
Rushton (2000b)
Cortical neurons (billions)
-
13.767
13.665
13.185
Rushton (2000b)
Cranial Capacity (cm3)
-
1487
1458
1403
Rushton (2000b)
Intelligence
IQ test scores (USA)
-
106
100
85
Rushton (2000b)
Decision times
Simple
361 mls
371 mls
398 mls
Rushton (2000b)
Complex
423 mls
486 mls
489 mls
Rushton (2000b)
Odd man out
787 mls
898 mls
924 mls
Rushton (2000b)
Cultural achievements
Number of times all 21 measures of civilization independently achieved
1
4
0
Rushton (2000b)
Top 40 most important scientists, 800BC to 1950
0
100%
0
Murray (2006)
Scientists in Dictionary of Scientific Biography
2%
98%
0
Extrapolated from Murray (2006)
Maturation Rate
Gestation time
Already born at 37 weeks
6.2%
6.9%
15.6%
Gage (2000)
Skeletal development
Bone age, measured by months in excess of chronological age among adolescent females
0
4 months
10 months
Ontell et al. (1996)
Motor development
Walking
13 months
12 months
11 months
Rushton (2000b)
Dental development
Age at permanent tooth eruption
8
6.1
5.8
Rushton (2000b)
Age at first experience
Sexually experienced aged 21
9%
40%
64%
Rushton (2000b)
Age of first pregnancy
-
29.5
27
24.2
Matthews & Hamilton (2016)
Life span (years, male, USA)
-
80.3
76.8
72.7
Washington State (2009)
Personality
Psychopathic Personality
Assorted proxies
10.1%
14.6%
16.6%
Huang et al. (2006)
Social Organization
Marital Stability
% married or cohabiting in middle age
66
63
35
Shi (1999)
Law abidingness
Serious assaults per 100,000 by groups of nations
37.1
61.6
110.8
Rushton (2000b)
Mental health
Schizophrenia Odds ratio, UK
-
0
2.5
Coid et al. (2000).
Reproductive Effort
2 egg twinning (per 1000 births)
-
4
8
16
Rushton (2000b)
Hormone levels
CAG Length (Low testosterone genetic marker)
23.1%
21.31%
20.23%
Dutton et al. (2016b)
Secondary sexual characteristics
Male Voice depth
108 Hz
110 Hz
<
br /> 117Hz
Rushton (2000b) & Traunmuller & Eriksson (1993).
Intercourse frequencies
Per week
1–4
2–4
3–10
Rushton (2000b)
Permissive attitudes
Promiscuity, 5 or more sexual partners in lifetime
8%
26%
38%
Schuster (1998)
Sexually transmitted diseases
Percent of population with AIDS
0.07%
0.4%
8%
Rushton (2000b)
It can be seen that in all of these measures, the races can be place on the r–K continuum in the same direction. In the unstable yet congenial environment of Sub-Saharan Africa it pays to live fast, die young and be evolved to be impulsive. Accordingly, Africans mature more quickly, are more sexually promiscuous, invest less in their offspring and even conspicuously advertise their sexual characteristics. Basic needs are met, so there is less selection for intelligence or cooperation. Northeast Asians are at the other extreme, strongly competing with each other and other groups in a very harsh, yet predictable, environment. Thus, energy is invested to a greater extent in personality and brain growth and less in secondary sexual characteristics, which might merely be signs of fertility. People mature slowly because there is so much to learn in order to survive.
American psychologist A. J. Figueredo and his colleagues (2012) argue that that parasite stress can be included within this model, meaning that r/K selection potentially permits a more parsimonious explanation for differences in behaviour than parasite stress alone. Put simply, a K-factor, including differences in General Factor of Personality, is proposed to explain the data presented by Thornhill’s research group. Other critics have re-analysed Thornhill’s data and found that it did not support his proposed hypothesis to the extent that his research group have argued (Currie & Mace, 2012). Moreover, we have already observed that ethnocentrism levels are relatively high in Northeast Asia. However, the peoples there are evolved to high latitudes with relatively low levels of a parasite stress. As such, this finding is incongruous with the theory and requires an ad hoc explanation. Accordingly, it can be argued that differences in Life History Strategy may significantly explain population differences in ethnocentric behaviour and we will now explore this in more depth.
The clearest presentation of the Life History model of ethnocentrism has been provided by Figueredo et al. (2011). Their own exploration of the model was partly motivated by a desire to test which theory of ethnocentrism was more plausible; the sociobiological theory or social identity theory (that people affiliate with certain groups because doing so enhances their self-esteem). Figueredo et al. maintain that the sociobiological model is really an extension of Genetic Similarity Theory, such that people will invest more in those who are genetically closer to them than they will in those who are genetically distant; and a member of your ethny is closer to you, on average, than a member of another ethny.
Figueredo et al. argue that in the context of a slow Life History, people are likely to form warm feelings and a strong degree of attachment to other people, including all in-groups of which they are a part. They will also form a more trusting and positive attitude to people in general, perceiving the world as a fundamentally good place and the authors note that individuals with cooperative personalities and secure attachments have relatively low levels of negative ethnocentrism. In contrast, fast Life History strategists will be the products of an unstable environment. As parental investment will be lower, they will have somewhat weaker bonds with their in-groups on this basis. They will also learn to see the world as a chaotic and nasty place and so learn to be extremely distrustful of members of out-groups in particular. So, slow Life History strategists will be more likely to engage in reciprocal altruistic relationships both with kin as well as with non-kin.
In addition, argue Figeruedo et al., slow Life History strategists will also be more able to control their emotions. Those who are evolved to stable yet selective environments will depend on many long-term and cooperative social bonds and, indeed, such bonds are fundamental to survival in such an environment. Accordingly, saying or doing the wrong thing at the wrong time will be a disaster for slow Life History strategists meaning that they must learn a high level of emotional intelligence, and perhaps simply have a high level of general intelligence, so that they don’t make social mistakes. For the same reason they must also learn to control their impulses and not become easily enraged. By contrast, in an unstable environment, fast Life History strategists are likely to be killed if they carefully consider the right course of action in the face of an immediate threat. They must react decisively and immediately to crush the threat, something which might be aided by extremely high levels of aggression and thus low impulse control and low Agreeableness. As they will be more attuned to social norms, more cooperative and more controlled, slow Life History strategists will also be more likely to internalize social norms and the current social norm in Western countries is to not be prejudiced against members of different ethnic groups (see Dutton, 2013).
Accordingly, Figueredo et al. predict that a slow Life History will be associated with a low level of negative ethnocentrism while a fast Life History will associated with high levels of it, something which they tested in Costa Rica and Tuscon, Arizona. They found a correlation of −0.26 between a slow Life History and negative ethnocentrism. They also found that men were more likely to be ethnocentric than women and less likely than women to follow a slow Life History. In addition, they found that greater in-group altruism is not necessarily associated with greater negative ethnocentrism. It is noteworthy that the correlation between Life History strategy and negative ethnocentrism was the same both in Arizona and Costa Rica. This being the case, it cannot be argued that the association is caused by conformity to the dominant political dispensation — for example, Multiculturalism in the USA — as the same correlation is found in Costa Rica. As such, the finding is likely to reflect an evolved capacity, just as Figueredo et al. argue. It is also worthy of comment that the correlation between Life History strategy and negative ethnocentrism is relatively weak, even if it is statistically significant. This would imply that though Life History strategy is important in predicting the degree to which people are likely to be ethnocentric, it is, again, far from the only factor that explains differences on this measure. However, it is a more parsimonious model than Parasite Stress.
8. Testing the Life History Theory Hypothesis
Dutton et al. (2016a) attempted to see if Figueredo et al’s model also contributes to explaining ethnic and racial differences in ethnocentrism. They drew upon already published studies to accrue datasets on proxies for Life History strategy at a country level. These were:
1. CAG repeats on the AR Gene (CAG). Minkov and Bond (2015) tested national differences in Life History strategy using genetic polymorphisms. As part of their study they collected national-level data on the AR gene, which is a known androgen receptor gene and is polymorphic. Higher numbers of CAG repeats (i.e longer CAGs) have been linked to higher insensitivity to testosterone. They drew upon Minkov & Bond (2015) and Dutton et al. (2016b) who extended these data.
2. Androgenic hair (No Androgenic Hair). The level of male androgenic hair indicates higher androgen — that is testosterone — levels and Mid-Phalangeal hair is a proxy for androgenic hair. A large dataset was presented in Dutton et al. (2016b) and we employed this. It recorded the percent of the population with no androgenic hair. As Dutton et al. (2016b) explore, higher levels of testosterone make people more aggressive and are associated with a faster Life History strategy.
3. DRD4 7-Repeat, National Frequency (DRD4). This is a dopamine receptor genes which is associated with many aspects of a fast Life History, such as, on the 7-repeat, impulsiveness, financial risk-taking, gambling, and delinquency. Data was taken from Minkov and Bond (2015).
/>
4. 5HTTLPR S-Allele National Frequency (5HTT). This serotonin transporter gene is associated with sensitivity to context and especially stressful situations. Those possessing the s-form display higher levels of ingroup-bias and out-group hostility in such situations. Data was taken from Minkov and Bond (2015).
5. Life History Strategy-GFI. (LHS) (N = 36). This is a combination of the 3 LIFE HISTORY strategy measures presented by Minkov and Bond (2015).
DRD4 significantly positively correlated with negative ethnocentrism at −0.7. 5HTTLPR did not significantly correlate. In addition, CAG repeat did not significantly correlate with either of the variables and nor did Androgenic hair. However, LHS-GFI did significantly positively correlate with negative ethnocentrism, at 0.3. As noted, DRD4 also did. This implies a genetic basis for negative ethnocentrism in a fast Life History strategy. This being the case, these specific genes do not appear to explain the high levels of positive ethnocentrism that have been observed among Northeast Asians. That said, two markers of slow Life History — having low levels of androgenic hair and shorter CAG repeats on the AR gene — do almost reach significance in their association with positive ethnocentrism. Thus, although more research is required with a larger N to be truly confident in this, a liberal interpretation is that, at the population level, a slow Life History strategy, based on strongly genetic differences, can lead to higher levels of positive ethnocentrism.
Race Differences in Ethnocentrism Page 14