4.8 Article

Demography and ecology drive variation in cooperation across human populations

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1105186108

关键词

evolution of cooperation; cultural norms; common-pool resource; real-world measure; economic game

资金

  1. Cogito Foundation
  2. Parkes Foundation
  3. European Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies argue that cross-cultural variation in human cooperation supports cultural group selection models of the evolution of large-scale cooperation. However, these studies confound cultural and environmental differences between populations by predominantly sampling one population per society. Here, we test the hypothesis that behavioral variation between populations is driven by environmental differences in demography and ecology. We use a public goods game played with money and a naturalistic measure of behavior involving the distribution of salt, an essential and locally valued resource, to demonstrate significant variation in levels of cooperation across 16 discrete populations of the same small-scale society, the Pahari Korwa of central India. Variation between these populations of the same cultural group is comparable to that found between different cultural groups in previous studies. Demographic factors partly explain this variation; age and a measure of social network size are associated with contributions in the public goods game, while population size and the number of adult sisters residing in the population are associated with decisions regarding salt. That behavioral variation is at least partly contingent on environmental differences between populations questions the existence of stable norms of cooperation. Hence, our findings call for reinterpretation of cross-cultural data on cooperation. Although cultural group selection could theoretically explain the evolution of large-scale cooperation, our results make clear that existing cross-cultural data cannot be taken as empirical support for this hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据