4.7 Review

Human threat management systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 1042-1051

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.011

关键词

Self-protection; Disease avoidance; Threat management; Precautionary psychology; Evolutionary psychology; Domain specificity; Fear; Disgust; Prejudice; Stigma; Social cognition; Motivation; Error management

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH064734]
  2. National Science Foundation [0642873]
  3. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  5. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [0642873] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans likely evolved precautionary systems designed to minimize the threats to reproductive fitness posed by highly interdependent ultrasociality. A review of research on the self-protection and disease avoidance systems reveals that each system is functionally distinct and domain-specific: each is attuned to different cues; engages different emotions, inferences, and behavioral inclinations; and is rooted in somewhat different neurobiological substrates. These systems share important features, however. Each system is functionally coherent, in that perceptual, affective, cognitive, and behavioral processes work in concert to reduce fitness costs of potential threats. Each system is biased in a risk-averse manner, erring toward precautionary responses even when available cues only heuristically imply threat. And each system is functionally flexible, being highly sensitive to specific ecological and dispositional cues that signal greater vulnerability to the relevant threat. These features characterize a general template useful for understanding not only the self-protection and disease avoidance systems, but also a broader set of evolved, domain-specific precautionary systems. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据