Cultural evolution: integrating psychology, evolution and culture

© 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/The definitive version is available via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.001. Available online 10 July 2015.Cultural evolution represents a body of theory and findings premised on the notions that, (i), human cultural change constitutes a Darwinian evolutionary process that shares key characteristics with (but is not identical in details to) genetic evolution; (ii), this second evolutionary process has been instrumental in our species' dramatic ecological success by allowing the rapid, open-ended generation and accumulation of technology, social institutions, knowledge systems and behavioural practices far beyond the complexity of other species' socially learned behaviour; and (iii), our psychology permits, and has been shaped by, this cultural evolutionary process, for example, through socio-cognitive mechanisms such as imitation, teaching and intentionality that support high-fidelity social learning, and biases governing from whom and what we learn

From cultural traditions to cumulative culture: parameterizing the differences between human and nonhuman culture.

The definitive version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.05.046This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Diverse species exhibit cultural traditions, i.e. population-specific profiles of socially learned traits, from songbird dialects to primate tool-use behaviours. However, only humans appear to possess cumulative culture, in which cultural traits increase in complexity over successive generations. Theoretically, it is currently unclear what factors give rise to these phenomena, and consequently why cultural traditions are found in several species but cumulative culture in only one. Here, we address this by constructing and analysing cultural evolutionary models of both phenomena that replicate empirically attestable levels of cultural variation and complexity in chimpanzees and humans. In our model of cultural traditions (Model 1), we find that realistic cultural variation between populations can be maintained even when individuals in different populations invent the same traits and migration between populations is frequent, and under a range of levels of social learning accuracy. This lends support to claims that putative cultural traditions are indeed cultural (rather than genetic) in origin, and suggests that cultural traditions should be widespread in species capable of social learning. Our model of cumulative culture (Model 2) indicates that both the accuracy of social learning and the number of cultural demonstrators interact to determine the complexity of a trait that can be maintained in a population. Combining these models (Model 3) creates two qualitatively distinct regimes in which there are either a few, simple traits, or many, complex traits. We suggest that these regimes correspond to nonhuman and human cultures, respectively. The rarity of cumulative culture in nature may result from this interaction between social learning accuracy and number of demonstrators.Leverhulme Trus

An experimental test of the accumulated copying error model of cultural mutation for Acheulean handaxe size

PublishedJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tArchaeologists interested in explaining changes in artifact morphology over long time periods have found it useful to create models in which the only source of change is random and unintentional copying error, or 'cultural mutation'. These models can be used as null hypotheses against which to detect non-random processes such as cultural selection or biased transmission. One proposed cultural mutation model is the accumulated copying error model, where individuals attempt to copy the size of another individual's artifact exactly but make small random errors due to physiological limits on the accuracy of their perception. Here, we first derive the model within an explicit mathematical framework, generating the predictions that multiple independently-evolving artifact chains should diverge over time such that their between-chain variance increases while the mean artifact size remains constant. We then present the first experimental test of this model in which 200 participants, split into 20 transmission chains, were asked to faithfully copy the size of the previous participant's handaxe image on an iPad. The experimental findings supported the model's prediction that between-chain variance should increase over time and did so in a manner quantitatively in line with the model. However, when the initial size of the image that the participants resized was larger than the size of the image they were copying, subjects tended to increase the size of the image, resulting in the mean size increasing rather than staying constant. This suggests that items of material culture formed by reductive vs. additive processes may mutate differently when individuals attempt to replicate faithfully the size of previously-produced artifacts. Finally, we show that a dataset of 2601 Acheulean handaxes shows less variation than predicted given our empirically measured copying error variance, suggesting that other processes counteracted the variation in handaxe size generated by perceptual cultural mutation.This work was supported by a Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant (F/07 476/AR - http://www.leverhulme.ac.uk)

Differences in Manufacturing Traditions and Assemblage-Level Patterns: the Origins of Cultural Differences in Archaeological Data

AcceptedArticle in PressThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via the DOI in this record.© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York A relationship between behavioral variability and artifactual variability is a founding principle of archaeology. However, this relationship is surprisingly not well studied empirically from an explicitly “microevolutionary” perspective. Here, we experimentally simulated artifactual variation in two populations of “artifact” manufacturers, involving only a single behavioral difference in terms of their “tradition” of manufacturing tool. We then statistically analyzed shape variation in the resultant artifacts. In many respects, patterned differences might not have been expected to emerge given the simple nature of the task, the fact that only a single behavioral variable differed in our two populations, and all participants copied the same target artifact. However, multivariate analyses identified significant differences between the two “assemblages.” These results have several implications for our understanding and theoretical conceptualization of the relationship between behavior and artifactual variability, including the analytical potency of conceiving of artifacts as the product of behavioral “recipes” comprised of individual “ingredient” behavioral properties. Indeed, quite trivial behavioral differences, in generating microevolutionarily potent variability, can thus have long-term consequences for artifactual changes measured over time and space. Moreover, measurable “cultural” differences in artifacts can emerge not necessarily only because of a strict “mental template” but as the result of subtle differences in behavioral ingredients that are socially learned at the community level.We are grateful to Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, Metin Eren, and the anonymous reviewers and editors at JAMT for helpful and constructive comments on this paper. This research was partly supported by the Leverhulme Trust (F/07 476/AR) and by the Research Foundation for the State University of New York

The impact of imitative versus emulative learning mechanisms on artifactual variation: Implications for the evolution of material culture

Cultural evolutionary approaches highlight that different social learning processes may be involved in the maintenance of cultural traditions. Inevitably, for traditions to be maintained, they must be transmitted with reasonably fidelity. It has been proposed that 'imitation' (i.e., the direct copying of actions of others displayed in tasks such as toolmaking) generates relatively low rates of copying error. As such, imitation has often been ascribed an important role in the maintenance of traditions and in the 'ratcheting' of technological complexity over time. Conversely, 'emulation' (i.e., the copying of a result but not the behaviors that have led to that result) is allegedly associated with the production of relatively higher rates of copying error. However, to what extent these different social learning mechanisms generate distinct patterns of variation during the manufacture of material traditions remains largely unexplored empirically. Here, a controlled experiment was implemented using 60 participants who copied the shape of a 3D 'target handaxe form' from a standardized foam block. In an 'imitation condition', 30 participants were shown manufacturing techniques employed in the production of the target form and the target form itself. Conversely, in an 'emulation condition', 30 participants were shown only the (target) form. Copying error rates were statistically different, being significantly lower in the 'imitation' condition compared to the 'emulation' condition. Moreover, participants in the imitation condition matched the demonstrated behaviors with significantly higher copying fidelity than the alternative condition. These results illustrate that imitation may be imperative for the long-term perpetuation of visibly distinct archaeological traditions, especially in the case of lithic (reductive) traditions, where copying error rates can be expected to be relatively high. These findings, therefore, provide evidence that imitation may be required to explain the prolonged continuity of broad shape fidelity such as that seen in traditions of 'handaxe' manufacture during the Pleistocene.Leverhulme Trus

Cultural diffusion in humans and other animals

This is the author's post print version of an article published in definitive form in Current Opinion in Psychology, Volume 8, April 2016, Pages 15–21.The definitive published version is available from: doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.002Available online 14 September 2015Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.Recent years have seen an enormous expansion and progress in studies of the cultural diffusion processes through which behaviour patterns, ideas and artifacts are transmitted within and between generations of humans and other animals. The first of two main approaches focuses on identifying, tracing and understanding cultural diffusion as it naturally occurs, an essential foundation to any science of culture. This endeavor has been enriched in recent years by sophisticated statistical methods and surprising new discoveries particularly in humans, other primates and cetaceans. This work has been complemented by a growing corpus of powerful, purpose-designed cultural diffusion experiments with captive and natural populations that have facilitated the rigorous identification and analysis of cultural diffusion in species from insects to humans.John Templeton Foundatio

Copying error, evolution, and phylogenetic signal in artifactual traditions: An experimental approach using "model artifacts"

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Spatio-temporal patterns of artifactual variation are increasingly being studied via the explicit application of cultural evolutionary theory and methods. Such broad-scale (macroevolutionary) patterns are mediated, however, by a series of small-scale (microevolutionary) processes that occur at the level of individual artifacts, and individual artifact users and producers. Within experimental biology, "model organisms" have played a crucial role in understanding the role of fundamental microevolutionary processes, such as mutation and the inheritance of variation, in respect to macroevolutionary patterns. There has, however, been little equivalent laboratory work to better understand how microevolutionary processes influence macroevolutionary patterns in artifacts and their analysis. Here, we adopt a "model artifact" approach to experimentally study the issues of copy error (mutation) and resultant phylogenetic signal in artifact traditions. We used morphometric procedures to examine shape copying error rates in our "model artifacts." We first established experimentally that statistically different rates of copying error (mutation) could be induced when participants used two different types of shaping tool to produce copies of foam "artifacts." Using this as a baseline, we then tested whether these differing mutation rates led to differing phylogenetic signal and accuracy in two separate experimental transmission chains (lineages), involving participants copying the previous participant's artifact. The analysis demonstrated that phylogenetic reconstruction is more accurate in artifactual lineages where copying error is demonstrably lower. Such results demonstrate how fidelity of transmission impacts directly on the evolution of technological traditions and their empirical analysis. In particular, these results highlight that differing contexts of cultural transmission relating to fidelity might lead to differing patterns of resolution within reconstructed evolutionary sequences. Overall, these analyses demonstrate the importance of a "model artifact" approach in discussions of cultural evolution, equivalent in importance to the use of model organisms in evolutionary biology in order to better understand fundamental microevolutionary processes of direct relevance to macroevolutionary archaeological patterns.We are grateful to Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, Robin Torrence, and our anonymous reviewers for helpful and constructive comments on this paper. This research was partly supported by the Leverhulme Trust (F/07 476/AR) and by the Research Foundation for the State University of New York

Considering the role of time budgets on copy-error rates in material culture traditions: an experimental assessment

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Ethnographic research highlights that there are constraints placed on the time available to produce cultural artefacts in differing circumstances. Given that copying error, or cultural 'mutation', can have important implications for the evolutionary processes involved in material culture change, it is essential to explore empirically how such 'time constraints' affect patterns of artefactual variation. Here, we report an experiment that systematically tests whether, and how, varying time constraints affect shape copying error rates. A total of 90 participants copied the shape of a 3D 'target handaxe form' using a standardized foam block and a plastic knife. Three distinct 'time conditions' were examined, whereupon participants had either 20, 15, or 10 minutes to complete the task. One aim of this study was to determine whether reducing production time produced a proportional increase in copy error rates across all conditions, or whether the concept of a task specific 'threshold' might be a more appropriate manner to model the effect of time budgets on copy-error rates. We found that mean levels of shape copying error increased when production time was reduced. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the 20 minute and 15 minute conditions. Significant differences were only obtained between conditions when production time was reduced to 10 minutes. Hence, our results more strongly support the hypothesis that the effects of time constraints on copying error are best modelled according to a 'threshold' effect, below which mutation rates increase more markedly. Our results also suggest that 'time budgets' available in the past will have generated varying patterns of shape variation, potentially affecting spatial and temporal trends seen in the archaeological record. Hence, 'time-budgeting' factors need to be given greater consideration in evolutionary models of material culture change.This work was funded by the Leverhulme Trust (Research Project Grant F/07 476/AR). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscrip

The evolution of individual and cultural variation in social learning

AcceptedReviewIt is often assumed in experiments and models that social learning abilities – how often individuals copy others, plus who and how they copy – are species-typical. Yet there is accruing evidence for systematic individual variation in social learning within species. Here we review evidence for this individual variation, placing it within a continuum of increasing phenotypic plasticity, from genetically polymorphic personality traits, to developmental plasticity via cues such as maternal stress, to the individual learning of social learning, and finally the social learning of social learning. The latter, possibly restricted to humans, can generate stable between-group cultural variation in social learning. More research is needed to understand the extent, causes, and consequences of this individual and cultural variation.Economic and Social Research Council (UK)Research Grants Council (Hong Kong)Leverhulme Trust International NetworkBBSRC David Phillips Fellowshi

Sex-biased sound symbolism in english-language first names.

Published onlineJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tSexual selection has resulted in sex-based size dimorphism in many mammals, including humans. In Western societies, average to taller stature men and comparatively shorter, slimmer women have higher reproductive success and are typically considered more attractive. This size dimorphism also extends to vocalisations in many species, again including humans, with larger individuals exhibiting lower formant frequencies than smaller individuals. Further, across many languages there are associations between phonemes and the expression of size (e.g. large /a, o/, small /i, e/), consistent with the frequency-size relationship in vocalisations. We suggest that naming preferences are a product of this frequency-size relationship, driving male names to sound larger and female names smaller, through sound symbolism. In a 10-year dataset of the most popular British, Australian and American names we show that male names are significantly more likely to contain larger sounding phonemes (e.g. "Thomas"), while female names are significantly more likely to contain smaller phonemes (e.g. "Emily"). The desire of parents to have comparatively larger, more masculine sons, and smaller, more feminine daughters, and the increased social success that accompanies more sex-stereotyped names, is likely to be driving English-language first names to exploit sound symbolism of size in line with sexual body size dimorphism.BJP is supported by a grant from The Fyssen Foundation