4.6 Article

Dynamical Structure of a Traditional Amazonian Social Network

Journal

ENTROPY
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 4932-4955

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e15114932

Keywords

social systems; social networks; time-series analysis; cooperation; reciprocity; kinship; Tsimane'; forager-horticulturalists

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [BCS-0422690]
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging [R01AG024119-01, 2P01AG022500-06A1]
  3. NSF [EF-1137929]
  4. Emergent Institutions Project
  5. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  6. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1258489] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Emerging Frontiers
  8. Direct For Biological Sciences [1440458] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reciprocity is a vital feature of social networks, but relatively little is known about its temporal structure or the mechanisms underlying its persistence in real world behavior. In pursuit of these two questions, we study the stationary and dynamical signals of reciprocity in a network of manioc beer (Spanish: chicha; Tsimane': shocdye') drinking events in a Tsimane' village in lowland Bolivia. At the stationary level, our analysis reveals that social exchange within the community is heterogeneously patterned according to kinship and spatial proximity. A positive relationship between the frequencies at which two families host each other, controlling for kinship and proximity, provides evidence for stationary reciprocity. Our analysis of the dynamical structure of this network presents a novel method for the study of conditional, or non-stationary, reciprocity effects. We find evidence that short-timescale reciprocity (within three days) is present among non-and distant-kin pairs; conversely, we find that levels of cooperation among close kin can be accounted for on the stationary hypothesis alone.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available