Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-hqrjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-17T13:04:03.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural evolution by revealed preferences – from status signals to alien porn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2026

Oliver Braganza Open the ORCID record for Oliver Braganza [Opens in a new window]
Oliver Braganza*
Affiliation:
Center for Economics and Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany oliver.braganza@ukbonn.de www.proxyeconomics.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Singh convincingly argues that understanding culture requires understanding subjective selection. Here, I (1) suggest an extension to Singh’s cultural manifold, namely status signaling systems and (2) argue that Singh’s approach might unfold its greatest impact on the study of modern culture and economics. Indeed, subjective selection seems to readily predict numerous modern phenomena such as highly addictive digital interfaces.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e291
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Acerbi, A., & de Courson, B. (2025). Weak individual preferences stabilize culture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(8), e2412380122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2412380122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. In Source: The journal of political economy (Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 211–221). The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827159 Google Scholar
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01655.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, J. (2017). Evolutionary teleonomy as a unifying principle for the extended evolutionary synthesis. BIO-Complexity, 2017(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5048/BIO-C.2017.2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braganza, O. (2020). A simple model suggesting economically rational sample-size choice drives irreproducibility. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0229615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229615 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braganza, O. (2022). Proxyeconomics, a theory and model of proxy-based competition and cultural evolution. Royal Society Open Science, 9(2), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSOS.211030 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braganza, O. (2025). Nudging society to consume—The aggregate consequences of consumption nudges. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43253-024-00144-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braganza, O., John, Y. J., Caldwell, L., & McCoy, D. E. (2024). Teleonomy, legibility, and diversity: Do we need more “proxynomics”? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e88. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24000050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braganza, O., & Kapeller, J. (2025). Reappraising consumption nudging—On liberty in the age of climate catastrophe. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04246-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browning, H., & Veit, W. (2024). Animal welfare science, performance metrics, and proxy failure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2300300X CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chai, A. (2017). Tackling Keynes’ question: A look back on 15 years of learning to consume. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0455-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, C. (2019). The promises of a naturalistic approach: How cultural evolution theory can inform (evolutionary) economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 29(4), 1241–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-019-00632-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egozi, S., & Ram, Y. (2024). Prestige bias in cultural evolutionary dynamics. Royal Society Open Science, 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. H. (2011). The Darwin economy: Liberty, competition, and the common good. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, P. B., Craig, L. K., Paiz-Say, J., Lavika, P., Kumar, S. A., & Rangaswamy, M. (2020). Sexual selection, signaling and facial hair: US and India ratings of variable male facial hair. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 6(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-020-00134-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00071-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, W. C., Gillett, A. J., Kaplan, D. M., & Ross, R. M. (2024). Proxy failure and poor measurement practices in psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X2300287X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, Y. J., Caldwell, L., McCoy, D. E., & Braganza, O. (2024). Dead rats, dopamine, performance metrics, and peacock tails: Proxy failure is an inherent risk in goal-oriented systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47(e67), 1–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23002753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. Y., & Pettit, N. C. (2019). A cross-cultural review and perspective on status striving. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(7), e12488. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12488 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, D. E., & Haig, D. (2020). Embryo selection and mate choice: Can ‘honest signals’ be trusted? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(4), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TREE.2019.12.002 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, G. F. (2007). Runaway consumerism explains the fermi paradox. In Brockman, J. (Ed.), What is your dangerous idea? (pp. 240–243). Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Nguyen, C. T. (2021). The seductions of clarity. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 89, 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246121000035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, U., Krauss, A., & Braganza, O. (2022). Generalization Bias in Science. Cognitive Science, 46, 1–26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prum, R. O. (2012). Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin’s really dangerous idea. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1600), 2253–2265. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSTB.2011.0285 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prum, R. O. (2017). The evolution of beauty: How Darwin’s forgotten theory of mate choice shapes the animal world. Anchor.Google Scholar
Rizzo, M. J., & Whitman, G. (2019). Escaping paternalism: Rationality, behavioral economics, and public policy. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/escaping-paternalism/6CC068636EB534E04792F2AC41F2D4D9 10.1017/9781139061810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacco, P. L. (2024). It’s the biology, stupid! Proxy failures in economic decision making. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e82. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23002947 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schubert, C., & Cordes, C. (2013). Role models that make you unhappy: Light paternalism, social learning, and welfare. Journal of Institutional Economics, 9(2), 131–159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137413000015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016). The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Tulleken, C. (2023). Ultra-processed people: The science behind food that isn’t food. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315135373 Google Scholar
Witt, U. (2001). Learning to consume – A theory of wants and the growth of demand. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 11(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00003851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, U. (2021). Does sustainability-promoting policy making reduce our welfare? Ecological Economics, 188, 107130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S., Kilduff, G. J., & West, T. (2023). Status acuity: The ability to accurately perceive status hierarchies reduces status conflict and benefits group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(1), 114–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001024 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed