Interethnic Interaction, Strategic Bargaining Power, and the Dynamics of Cultural Norms

Abstract

Ethnic groups are universal and unique to human societies. Such groups sometimes have norms of behavior that are adaptively linked to their social and ecological circumstances, and ethnic boundaries may function to protect that variation from erosion by interethnic interaction. However, such interaction is often frequent and voluntary, suggesting that individuals may be able to strategically reduce its costs, allowing adaptive cultural variation to persist in spite of interaction with out-groups with different norms. We examine five mechanisms influencing the dynamics of ethnically distinct cultural norms, each focused on strategic individual-level choices in interethnic interaction: bargaining, interaction-frequency-biased norm adoption, assortment on norms, success-biased interethnic social learning, and childhood socialization. We use Bayesian item response models to analyze patterns of norm variation and interethnic interaction in an ethnically structured Amazonian population. We show that, among indigenous Matsigenka, interethnic education with colonial Mestizos is more strongly associated with Mestizo-typical norms than even extensive interethnic experience in commerce and wage labor is. Using ethnographic observations, we show that all five of the proposed mechanisms of norm adoption may contribute to this effect. However, of these mechanisms, we argue that changes in relative bargaining power are particularly important for ethnic minorities wishing to preserve distinctive norms while engaging in interethnic interaction in domains such as education. If this mechanism proves applicable in a range of other ethnographic contexts, it would constitute one cogent explanation for when and why ethnically structured cultural variation can either persist or erode given frequent, and often mutually beneficial, interethnic interaction.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12110-017-9297-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Modulation of the primary auditory thalamus when recognising speech in noise

“…The interaction effect had a mean large effect size ranging from a small effect to a very large effect (g*=2.549 [0.211, 5.066]; Figure 3C and 3D). The 95% HPD of the interaction effect excluded 0, indicating that this was a robust effect (Bunce and McElreath, 2017;McElreath, 2018). Simple main effect analyses showed that the direction of the interaction was as expected.…”

“…The HPD is the probability that the mean lies within the interval (Gelman et al, 2013;McElreath, 2018), this means that we are 95% sure the mean lies within the specified interval bounds. If the posterior probability distribution of odds ratios does not strongly overlap one (i.e., the HPD excludes one), then it is assumed that there is a detectable difference between conditions (Bunce and McElreath, 2017;McElreath, 2018).…”

“…Based on Cohen (1988), we interpreted effect sizes on a spectrum ranging from small (g* ≈ 0.2), to medium (g* ≈ 0.5), to large (g* ≈ 0.8), and beyond. If the HPD did not overlap zero, we considered this to be a robust effect (Bunce and McElreath, 2017;McElreath, 2018). However, we caution readers that if the HPD includes zero, it does not mean that the effect is missing (Amrhein et al, 2019).…”

Field evidence for two paths to cross-cultural competence: implications for cultural dynamics

“…The lower row contains analogous sample sizes for Mestizos. Further explanation, ethnographic validation, and translations of these questions are provided in Supplementary descriptions of these communities can be found in Bunce and McElreath (2017), Shepard et. al 2010, and Llosa Isenrich and Nieto Degregori (2003).…”

Efectos de las interacciones interétnicas en las relaciones de género de la kumpania de gitanos en Quito

“…De esa manera, como señala Stavenhagen (1968), en el "sistema de relaciones interétnicas" pueden instarse reconfiguraciones en las relaciones comerciales, en los modos de estratificación social y en los mecanismos de movilidad social. En este sentido, Bunce y McElreath (2017) hacen hincapié en los métodos y contenidos educativos; Villar, Jiménez y Alioto (2015) en el manejo y enseñanza de la lengua local, y Rodríguez (2002) y Oehmichen (2005) en la formación familiar y la identidad y género, respectivamente.…”