Distinguish Between Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology - Assignment Example

Psychology exam al affiliation Psychology exam Cass’s six stages of homosexuality The first stage of development of homosexuality begins with the individual developing characteristics of confusion on their identity. At this stage, the individual is not physically involved with a member of the opposite sex, but usually fancies and dreams of having same sex persons in their lives. In some instances, individuals completely avoid homosexual behaviors. In the second stage, the individual develops identity comparisons feelings. It is in this phase that the individual feels segregated from the ‘normal world’, in response, majority of them tend to become aggressive towards the heterosexuals. At this stage, a majority of the individuals face identity crisis and tend to think too much on what the society will perceive of their behaviors. Stage three deals with the individuals adapting to their homosexual status. The individuals, at this stage, have to live with the fact that, their needs, be it emotional or social have to be aligned with their being homosexual. It is also at this stage that individuals are left to choose whether to disclose their sexual orientation or keep it a secret. Unlike the third stage, the fourth stage allows individuals accept their status, as well as accept their being homosexuals. In stage five, the individuals develop identity pride and feel happy being identified with other individuals of their like. It is also at this stage that individuals tend to champion for their rights as members of the community. Lastly, individuals develop identity synthesis that allows individuals view heterosexuals as members of the community with their own opinion. Consequently individuals attest to the fact that the world is not split into two groups. Distinguish between evolutionary psychology and sociobiology Evolutionary psychologists indicate that the major reason behind human beings engaging in sexual behavior is to bring up offspring. Through the production of off springs, the cycle of life continues, with genes of parents being passed on to future generations. On the other hand, evolutionary psychologists argue that continuity of species is possible through stable reactions between two individuals. In this context, therefore, it is defensible to argue that long term relations, are inevitable; as it is through, these relationships that both partners are likely to find their lifetime partners. Identification of a lifetime partner has been indicated to create a prolific ground for existence and continuity of species. Evolutionary psychology, argues that involvement of parents in bringing up their children evolved from the fact that, humans developed a large brain that was fashioned into an instant need for survival. These psychologists continue to argue that, males who possess attributes of settling down and having a family are in a better pose than those who do not possess these attributes. Sociobiology advocates, that the major goal of human survival, as shaped by evolutionary means, is to ensure that, human beings must stay alive and reproduce. Their major objective of living and working are to ensure that, new species are reproduced and are made to survive. Sociobiologists argue that it is only moral that the human race continues through reproduction, a replacement of the previous species. In this context, it is arguably correct to state that, Sociobiologists make it almost compulsory for individuals to ensure that there is continuity in their lineages. This argument, to some extent, differs from the evolutionary approach that advocates for long term relations for continuity. Sociobiologists, on the other hand, believe in the continuity of lineages despite the relationships between two individuals. Gray’s model of approach/avoidance motivation Gray’s model aims at reflecting individual differentiations and sensitivities of the neurobiological mechanisms that determine individual emotional behavior and responses towards certain signals that may be posed on them, for instance rewards, punishments amongst others. According to the work of Gray, behavioral inhibition mechanisms are activated thanks to the rewards and positive responses that may be attributed to these individuals (Updegraff, Gable, and Taylor, 2004). On the other hand, behavioral reticence mechanisms are created from non rewards that are posed on the individuals. These may relate to punishments on the individual, no rewards given to motivate individuals amongst others. In response, the individuals develop avoidance behaviors that lead to their withdrawal form perform certain roles. In essence, Gray’s model argues that, extraversion and neuroticism attributes are related to the approach related and avoidance systems. The way in which the motivation systems of individuals are ascribed to individuals determine the manner in which they will conceive motivation. For instance, the motivation systems are positive; individuals adopt adoption mechanisms while negative ones cause individuals develop avoidance mechanisms. Updegraff, Gable, and Taylor (2004) indicate that the manner in which individuals respond to the motivations ascribed to them determines whether their motivation will be approach or avoidance oriented. Conclusively, Gray’s model works on the basis that forms of reinforcements determines motivation in individuals. Negative reinforcement lead to avoidance by individuals while use of positive reinforcements allows individuals develops positive motivation towards specific occurrences in their environments. Boundary theory Analysts argue that, the boundary theory works on the basis that, individuals are able to discern what is applicable to them and what is not appropriate. In this case, the boundary theory indicates that eating habits are controlled by two factors, need to satisfy hunger and for satiety. This is an interpretation of the ability of individuals to make tangible judgments in terms of what is right and what is not. In many instances, individuals tend to face numerous challenges in discerning the responses govern by various individuals in the various contexts. Research conducted on the responses of individuals; in regards to the boundary theory indicate that most people have difficulties decoding the responses by various persons in various situations. An example of the boundary theory can be applied in the context of hunger and amounts of intake. Studies indicate that human beings not only consume foods for satisfaction, but also to feel their texture. Other studies indicate that the sweeter the foods, the greater likelihood that individuals will consume more. Alternatively, individuals that presented with greater varieties of food tend to consume more, as are presented with a high range of foods to select from. In this context, the boundary theory applies. Individuals are left to draw lines between consumption of all these foods or select a substantial amount that is meant to satisfy their hunger but not carvings. The amount of intake determines the kind of person that will be revealed after consumption. Various individuals vary in the amount of food they intake. Studies also indicate that, human beings tend to consume a lot of foods that are sweet, unlike others. Food intakes depend on the taste of food, texture amongst others. The lower hunger boundaries are evident in persons who diet as compared to, non dieters. Dieters are out to check their weight and concerned on their weight and are likely to limit the amount of food intake, unlike the non dieters. Relationship of high arousal to attractive versus unattractive people Studies on attractiveness and sexual behavior indicate that individuals tend to be attracted, in a sexual manner, to members of the opposite sex who are more striking than the unattractive ones. Attractiveness begins from what one person sees from the instant they look at the other individual. Just like nature depicts what is attractive is what tends to display feelings of attractiveness and liking to the other party. This is no exception to individuals. When people fall in love at first sight, the major motivator is what they see at the instant they see the other person. A person who is attractive is likely to arouse feelings of liking in as many individuals as possible, unlike less attractive persons. The levels of arousal in individuals to attractive people have been indicated to be far much higher than those who are not appealing to them. Additionally, disclosure of those feelings to the other individuals has been credited to create more feelings of intimacy in the individual (Masters and Johnson, 1996). Attractiveness has been credited with the ability to instill approach feelings to individuals, and consequently, the other partner. This aspect of love has been indicated to be the emotional aspect that starts a relationship between two individuals, which is likely to lead to a fulfilling relationship. Just like evolutionary psychologists argue; it is inevitable to alienate the features of attractiveness in building or creation of a relationship. Through the physical attributes, individuals develop a liking of each other, which ultimately may lead to commitment between the two individuals. Falling in love has been termed as an accidental encounter. In this context, therefore, persons tend to fall in love with attractive persons unlike unappealing to their eyes. In this context, therefore, it is justified to argue that, individuals who attractive tend to display attributes of liking and probably love in the ling run among individuals. References Masters, W. H. and Johnson, V. (1996). Human Sexual Response. New York: Little, Brown and company. Updegraff, J., Gable, S. and Taylor, E. (2004). What Makes Experiences Satisfying? The Interaction of Approach– Avoidance Motivations and Emotions in Well-Being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, Vol. 86, No. 3, 496–504. Read More