Cited by 924Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

A Natural History of Human Morality

Tomasello, Michael·2016·Harvard University Press eBooks

Abstract

Michael Tomasello offers the most detailed account to date of the evolution of human moral psychology. Based on experimental data comparing great apes and human children, he reconstructs two key evolutionary steps whereby early humans gradually became an ultra-cooperative and, eventually, a moral species capable of acting as a plural agent “we”.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4159/9780674915855

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Tomasello presented an explanation for the evolution of morality that included a proposal for the reduction of aggressiveness in H. sapiens, called the interdependence hypothesis.

    “This general idea has been elaborated particularly clearly by Tomasello (2016), who presented an explanation for the evolution of morality that included a proposal for the reduction of aggressiveness in H. sapiens. Tomasello called it the “interdependence hypothesis.””
  • Selection favored a low propensity for male aggression because offspring were thereby better protected from the father's potential violence.

    “Selection favored a low propensity for male aggression because offspring were thereby better protected from the father’s potential violence.”
  • The result was a new kind of interdependence, such that individuals who were collaborative and less selfish were favored: cooperators fed better than those who were not chosen as foraging partners.

    “The result was a new kind of interdependence, such that individuals who were collaborative and less selfish were favored: cooperators fed better, for instance, than those who were not chosen as foraging partners.”
  • Due to this ecological change, mid-Pleistocene Homo were forced to collaborate in the food quest, rather than foraging individually as they had until then.

    “First, due to this ecological change, mid-Pleistocene Homo were forced to collaborate in the food quest, rather than foraging individually as they had until then.”
  • Effective cooperation depended on a reduction in selfishness and aggressiveness, and on a concomitant increase in sympathy and shared intentionality.

    “Effective cooperation depended on a reduction in selfishness and aggressiveness, and on a concomitant increase in sympathy and shared intentionality.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tomasello, M.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Tomasello, Michael
Venue
Harvard University Press eBooks
Published
2016-12-31
OpenAlex
W791834320
Cited by
924
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 151 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 63 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
39.50
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Harvard University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
human morality, moral psychology, evolution of morality, great apes, children, cooperation, social cognition, comparative psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review