4.4 Article

The cost of cowardice: punitive sentiments towards free riders in Turkana raids

Journal

EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 58-64

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.10.001

Keywords

Public goods; Warfare; Pastoralists; Indirect reciprocity; Cooperation; Punishment

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS 0850816]
  2. Leakey Foundation
  3. Owen Aldis award
  4. Harry Frank Guggenheim Dissertation fellowship
  5. Swedish Research Council [2009-2390]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Models indicate that large-scale cooperation can be sustained by indirect reciprocity or direct punishment, but the relative importance of these mechanisms is unresolved. Unlike direct punishment, indirect sanctions can be meted out without cost to the sanctioner, but direct punishment is advantageous when the scale of cooperation exceeds the network size of individuals. It is of great interest to assess the importance of these mechanisms in small-scale acephalous groups in which people have lived for most of our evolutionary history. Here we evaluate sentiments towards free riders in combat among the Turkana, an acephalous nomadic pastoral society in East Africa who periodically mobilize for cattle-raids against neighboring ethnic groups. Using vignette studies, we probed participants' motivation to sanction fictitious warriors who were cowards or deserters in a raid and compared it respectively to their reactions to an unskilled warrior or a warrior who turns back due to illness. Our results indicate that the Turkana are motivated to impose both indirect and direct sanctions on cowards consistent with indirect reciprocity and punishment models of cooperation. Our findings imply that both these mechanisms have shaped human cooperative psychology, and sheds light on how prestate societies solve the collective action problem in warfare. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available