Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-grvzd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T23:29:06.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural evolution need not imply group selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Dorsa Amir ,
Matthew R. Jordan  and
David G. Rand
Dorsa Amir
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. dorsa.amir@yale.edu http://www.dorsaamir.com
Matthew R. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. matthew.jordan@yale.edu david.rand@yale.edu http://www.daverand.org/ http://psychology.yale.edu/people/matthew-jordan
David G. Rand
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511. matthew.jordan@yale.edu david.rand@yale.edu http://www.daverand.org/ http://psychology.yale.edu/people/matthew-jordan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Richerson et al. make a compelling case for cultural evolution. In focusing on cultural group selection, however, they neglect important individual-level accounts of cultural evolution. While scientific discourse typically links cultural evolution to group selection and genetic evolution to individual selection, this association is due to historical accident only. We thus call for more consideration of individual-level cultural evolution.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e32
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bernard, M., Dreber, A., Strimling, P. & Eriksson, K. (2013) The subgroup problem: When can binding voting on extractions from a common pool resource overcome the tragedy of the commons? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 91:122–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capraro, V. & Cococcioni, G. (2015) Social setting, intuition, and experience in lab experiments interact to shape cooperative decision-making. Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2559182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cone, J. & Rand, D. G. (2014) Time pressure increases cooperation in competitively framed social dilemmas. PLoS ONE 9(12):e115756. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cornelissen, G., Dewitte, S. & Warlop, L. (2011) Are social value orientations expressed automatically? Decision making in the Dictator Game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37(8):1080–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deacon, R. & Shapiro, P. (1975) Private preference for collective goods revealed through voting on referenda. The American Economic Review 65(5):943–55.Google Scholar
Dreber, A., Fudenberg, D., Levine, D. K. & Rand, D. G. (2014) Altruism and self-control. Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477454.Google Scholar
Ellingsen, T., Herrmann, B., Nowak, M. A., Rand, D. G. & Tarnita, C. E. (2012) Civic capital in two cultures: The nature of cooperation in Romania and USA. CESifo Working Paper: Behavioural Economics. Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2179575.Google Scholar
Gächter, S., Herrmann, B. & Thöni, C. (2010) Culture and cooperation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365(1553):2651–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B. & Rockenbach, B. (2006) The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science 312(5770):108–11. doi: 10.1126/science.1123633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K., Bloom, P. & Mahajan, N. (2011) How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108(50):19931–36. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1110306108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A. & Nowak, M. A. (2014) Cooperating with the future. Nature 511:220–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H. & McElreath, R. (2001) In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. (2010b) The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3):61–83; discussion: 83–135. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. & Gächter, S. (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319(5868):1362–67. doi: 10.1126/science.1153808.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovarik, J. (2009) Giving it now or later: Altruism and discounting. Economics Letters 102(3):152–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotz, S. (2014) Spontaneous giving under structural inequality: Intuition promotes cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas. Available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://ssrn.com/abstract=2513498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peysakhovich, A. & Rand, D. G. (2015) Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2168 Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D. & Nowak, M. A. (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489(7416):427–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G. & Kraft-Todd, G. T. (2014) Reflection does not undermine self-interested prosociality. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 8:300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, D. G., Newman, G. E. & Wurzbacher, O. (2014a) Social context and the dynamics of cooperative choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1837.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. (2013) Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(8):413–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A. & Green, J. D. (2014b) Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications 5:3677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roch, S. G., Lane, J. A. S., Samuelson, C. D., Allison, S. T. & Dent, J. L. (2000) Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: A two-stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 83(2):185–212. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rockenbach, B. & Milinski, M. (2006) The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment. Nature 444(7120):718–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, J. F., Fischbacher, U., Thöni, C. & Utikal, V. (2014) Affect and fairness: Dictator games under cognitive load. Journal of Economic Psychology 41:77–87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. M., Gardner, R., Herr, A. & Ostrom, E. (2000) Collective choice in the commons: Experimental results on proposed allocation rules and votes. The Economic Journal 110(460):212–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar