Abstract
Proposing that the algorithms of social life are acquired as a domain-based process, the author offers distinctions between social domains preparing the individual for proximity-maintenance within a protective relationship (attachment domain), use and recognition of social dominance (hierarchical power domain), identification and maintenance of the lines dividing "us" and "them" (coalitional group domain), negotiation of matched benefits with functional equals (reciprocity domain), and selection and protection of access to sexual partners (mating domain). Flexibility in the implementation of domains occurs at 3 different levels: versatility at a bioecological level, variations in the cognitive representation of individual experience, and cultural and individual variations in the explicit management of social life. Empirical evidence for domain specificity was strongest for the attachment domain; supportive evidence was also found for the distinctiveness of the 4 other domains. Implications are considered at theoretical and applied levels.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
