Violence and Sociality in Human Evolution [and Comments and Replies]

Knauft, Bruce M.; Abler, Thomas S.; Betzig, Laura; Boehm, Christopher; Dentan, Robert Knox; Kiefer, Thomas; Otterbein, Keith F.; Paddock, John; Rodseth, Lars

doi:10.1086/203975

Cited by 392 publications

(188 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Along the chain of citations the core message seems to have been lost. cooperation (Knauft 1991), and the punishment of adulterers by jealous husbands account for a large share of murders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do (and Do Not) Demonstrate

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strong Reciprocity theorists claim that cooperation in social dilemma games can be sustained by costly punishment mechanisms that eliminate incentives to free ride, even in one-shot and finitely repeated games. There is little doubt that costly punishment raises cooperation in laboratory conditions. Its efficacy in the field however is controversial. I distinguish two interpretations of experimental results, and show that the wide interpretation endorsed by Strong Reciprocity theorists is unsupported by ethnographic evidence on decentralised punishment and by historical evidence on common pool institutions. The institutions that spontaneously evolve to solve dilemmas of cooperation typically exploit low-cost mechanisms, turning finite games into indefinitely repeated ones and eliminating the cost of sanctioning.JEL Classification: D02, D03, C92, H41, Z1

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do (and Do Not) Demonstrate

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The severity of a social hierarchy's biological and health effects, however, shows substantial variability within and across species (33) and plasticity over historical and evolutionary time (34,35). Such species-typical variation in the "virulence" of social ordering is commensurate with, and perhaps analogous to, the substantially differing slopes of SES-health gradients by nation and state (36).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social stratification, classroom climate, and the behavioral adaptation of kindergarten children

Boyce

Obradović

Bush

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socioeconomic status (SES) is the single most potent determinant of health within human populations, from infancy through old age. Although the social stratification of health is nearly universal, there is persistent uncertainty regarding the dimensions of SES that effect such inequalities and thus little clarity about the principles of intervention by which inequalities might be abated. Guided by animal models of hierarchical organization and the health correlates of subordination, this prospective study examined the partitioning of children's adaptive behavioral development by their positions within kindergarten classroom hierarchies. A sample of 338 5-y-old children was recruited from 29 Berkeley, California public school classrooms. A naturalistic observational measure of social position, parent-reported family SES, and child-reported classroom climate were used in estimating multilevel, random-effects models of children's adaptive behavior at the end of the kindergarten year. Children occupying subordinate positions had significantly more maladaptive behavioral outcomes than their dominant peers. Further, interaction terms revealed that low family SES and female sex magnified, and teachers' child-centered pedagogical practices diminished, the adverse influences of social subordination. Taken together, results suggest that, even within early childhood groups, social stratification is associated with a partitioning of adaptive behavioral outcomes and that the character of larger societal and school structures in which such groups are nested can moderate rank-behavior associations.child development | social dominance | stress | mental health

show abstract

“…The data to be discussed in this article stem from 1) individual forager ethnographies (e.g., Gardner, 2000;Holmberg, 1969;Lee, 1993;Lips, 1947;Tonkinson, 1978), 2) qualitatively comparative foragers studies (e.g., Kelly, 1995;Knauft, 1991;Service, 1966;Woodburn, 1982), and 3) studies that systematically sample nomadic forager societies (e.g., Fry, 2006;Fry & Söderberg, 2013a, 2013bKnauft, 1991;Marlowe, 2010;.…”

Section: Salient Features Of Mobile Forager Societiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing from numerous sources (e.g., Binford, 2001;Boehm, 1999;Kelly, 1995;Knauft, 1991;Leacock, 1978;Lee & DeVore, 1968;Marlowe, 2010), we can summarize the recurring demographic and social features reported for dozens of mobile forager societies worldwide (Fry, 2006; see also Figure 1). …”

Section: Salient Features Of Mobile Forager Societiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Original Partnership Societies: Evolved Propensities for Equality, Prosociality, and Peace

Fry

Souillac

2017

IJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses on what nomadic forager research suggests about human nature and examines how this ancestral form of human social organization is fundamentally partnership-oriented. Taking mobile forager social organization into consideration is important to partnership studies because all humanity lived as mobile foragers until very recently. The material considered in this article stems from 1) individual forager ethnographies, 2) qualitative comparative forager studies, and 3) research based on systematically sampled forager traits. The findings show the pervasiveness of egalitarianism (including gender equality), socialization and social control mechanism geared toward promoting prosocial behaviors such as sharing and the caring for others, conflict avoidance and resolution mechanisms, and no inclination toward warfare in values or practice. Such patterns that cut across nomadic forager societies from around the world call into question a familiar narrative about the supposedly self-centered, warlike, and hording nature of humanity. Mobile forager studies support an alternative narrative that challenges assumptions about the ‘'primitive versus civilized,’ normative progress and modernity, and biased projections of innate depravity onto all humanity. The article concludes by proposing that our nomadic forager forbearers solved the challenges of survival over evolutionary time not by making war, developing slavery, or ranking people into domination hierarchies of ‘haves’” and ‘have nots’—social institutions with which we are all too familiar today—but rather, our mobile forager ancestors promoted egalitarianism, cooperation, caring and sharing as they developed ways to resolve disputes with a minimum of bloodshed and sidestepped the development of war.

show abstract

Violence and Sociality in Human Evolution [and Comments and Replies]

Cited by 392 publications

References 19 publications

Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do (and Do Not) Demonstrate

Reciprocity: Weak or Strong? What Punishment Experiments Do (and Do Not) Demonstrate

Social stratification, classroom climate, and the behavioral adaptation of kindergarten children

The Original Partnership Societies: Evolved Propensities for Equality, Prosociality, and Peace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About