Personality and Social Psychology Review 1997 , Vol. 1, No. 4, 276-298 Copyright © 1997 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The Evolution of Truly Social Cognition: The Core Configurations Model Linnda R. Caporael Department of Science and Technology Studies Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute This article introduces a vocabulary suitable for evolutionary analyses in the human cognitive, social, and behavioral sciences. The vocabulary carves a middle way between advocates and critics of evolutionary perspectives by substituting the concept of repeated assembly for nature-nurture dualism. A model of core configurations -- based on human morphology and ecology in human evolutionary history -- is presented, and I argue that these configurations offace-to-face groups are the selective context for uniquely human mental systems. Hence, human cognition is "truly social," specialized for group living. The relevance of the core configuration model is illustrated with respect to two areas of interest to social psychologists: the self and social identity, and distributed cognition and shared reality. A final section illustrates the integrative power of the core configuration model with a brief comparison of the social and cognitive tasks faced by scientists and foragers.
For several decades, social psychologists resisted evolutionary perspectives and the shadow cast by biological determinism. Lately, however, Darwinism is slowly entering the mainstream of our discipline ( D. M. Buss, 1995; Caporael & Brewer, 1991; Simpson & Kenrick, 1997). Although there are epistemological and empirical challenges (e.g., Caporael & Brewer, 1990; Einon, 1994), these are not rejections of evolutionary approaches in general. Instead, such challenges are about underlying assumptions and heuristics, such as the individualistic "gene's-eye" view of evolution and tests of specific evolutionary hypotheses, such as male-female differences in promiscuity. The turn to evolution makes good sense: The human species has an evolutionary history like any other species, and a better understanding of it should enable us to gain a better understanding of human psychology. Focusing on genes and reproduction, however, is too limited. We need an evolutionary perspective more suitable to psychology's level of analysis than the typical gene's-eye view. We also need to go beyond the current thrust of reproductive-mindedness ( D. M. Buss, 1995) if evolution is to serve as a new paradigm for psychology. Modern Paradigms: Individualism and Self-Interest Most behavioral and social sciences assume human sociality is a by-product of individualism. Briefly put, individuals are fundamentally self-interested; social refers to the exchange of costs and benefits in the pursuit of outcomes of purely personal value, and society is the aggregate of individuals in pursuit of their respective self-interests ( Caporael, Dawes, Orbell, & van de Kragt, 1989). These basic assumptions took hold in 17th and 18th century political economy ( Myers, 1983), influenced Darwin in the 19th century ( Richards, 1997), and persisted into the 20th century worldview of "economic man" ( Schwartz, 1986). 1 To the individualistic paradigm, sociobiologists added the idea that the ultimate outcomes of purely personal value could be measured in the currency of the genes. This addition altered Darwin's original idea of natural selection ( Eldredge, 1995). For him, selection was passive: Whatever worked better than the available alternatives was disproportionately represented in the I am indebted to Marilynn Brewer and the reviewers of this article for their invaluable comments. This work was made possible by the National Science Foundation SBR-9321461. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Correspondence should be sent to Linnda R. Caporael, Department of Science and Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180. E-mail: caporl@rpi.edu.
____________________ | 1 | "Economic man" referred to men. A gender neutral term such as economic person erases the complex historical significance of economic man. Women were excluded because they typically did not own property nor could they enter independently into the "social contract" envisioned by Enlightenment thinkers. Darwin's view of the sexes was typical for his time: Women had evolved to be less intelligent then men, but women also had a higher moral nature ( Richards, 1987). Suffragettes successfully used women's "higher moral nature" to gain the vote, but an equality based on individual self-interest remains problematic among some feminist theorists ( Fox-Genovese, 1991). | -276- | 
