scholarly journals Imitation as an inheritance system

2009 ◽  
Vol 364 (1528) ◽  
pp. 2429-2443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Shea

What is the evolutionary significance of the various mechanisms of imitation, emulation and social learning found in humans and other animals? This paper presents an advance in the theoretical resources for addressing that question, in the light of which standard approaches from the cultural evolution literature should be refocused. The central question is whether humans have an imitation-based inheritance system—a mechanism that has the evolutionary function of transmitting behavioural phenotypes reliably down the generations. To have the evolutionary power of an inheritance system, an imitiation-based mechanism must meet a range of demanding requirements. The paper goes on to review the evidence for and against the hypothesis that there is indeed an imitation-based inheritance system in humans.

Author(s):  
Laureano Castro ◽  
Luis Castro ◽  
Miguel Á. Castro ◽  
Miguel Á. Toro

RESUMENEn la primera parte de este artículo defendemos que la evolución de la cultura en nuestra especie es consecuencia de una naturaleza humana esencialmente valorativa, la naturaleza de Homo suadens. La propuesta considera que nuestros antepasados homínidos dotados de la capacidad de aprobar y reprobar la conducta ajena desarrollaron un sistema de transmisión cultural assessor entre padres e hijos, el cual transformó el aprendizaje social en un sistema de herencia acumulativo. En la segunda parte, defendemos, desde nuestra condición de Homo suadens, la necesidad de reconceptualizar algunos de los problemas presentes en el núcleo teórico de las ciencias sociales.PALABRAS CLAVEAPRENDIZAJE SOCIAL, EVOLUCIÓN CULTURAL, TRANSMISIÓN ASSESSOR, HOMO SUADENSABSTRACTIn this paper, first we argue that the evolution of culture in our species is the result of an essentially evaluative human nature, the nature of Homo suadens. The proposal considers that our hominid ancestors endowed with the ability to approve or disapprove of the conduct of others developed a system of assessor cultural transmission between parents and children, who transformed social learning into a cumulative inheritance system. Second, we defend, from our Homo suadens condition, the need to reconceptualise some of the problems lying at the theoretical core of social sciences.KEY WORDSSOCIAL LEARNING, CULTURAL EVOLUTION, ASSESSOR TRANSMISSION, HOMO SUADENS


Author(s):  
Robert F. Lachlan ◽  
Andrew Whiten

“Culture” is generally regarded as a population’s shared array of traditions, transmitted between individuals by processes of social learning, and which may persist from one generation to later ones. If we consider genetic material to provide the primary system of inheritance in living things, then social learning—learning from others—provides a second inheritance system in those species of animals that have the cognitive capacity to learn in this way. Once it was thought that cultural traditions inherited in this way were unique to, and defining of, our own species. This view was challenged by research arising particularly in the middle of the 20th century, which revealed evidence of the spread of innovations in the behavior of nonhuman species, generating traditions that passed from one generation to the next. Early examples included regional birdsong dialects and novel foraging techniques in Japanese macaque monkeys. Research over the last seventy years or so has accumulated a wealth of evidence that animal traditions exist in many aspects of behavior, from migration to mate choice and predator avoidance, and in numerous taxa including fish, birds, and mammals. Social learning has also been well documented in insects, although the existence of traditions in the wild remains less clear. Once such a second inheritance system does emerge, supporting the transmission of behavioral traditions, the potential exists for a second system of evolution—cultural evolution—which can be defined most simply as changes in culture over time. As in the case of organic evolution based on genetic inheritance, imperfect copying and sampling error may be sufficient to cause evolutionary changes, known as drift. Alternatively, some innovations may prove to be more adaptive than others, in which case we can expect the essential Darwinian processes of variation, selection, and inheritance to generate some directional cultural evolution. Both drift and Darwinian evolution have long been evident in human cultural evolution, but evidence has begun to accumulate for them also in nonhuman species. Humans additionally display cumulative culture, in which some form of progress builds cumulatively on the achievements of previous generations. Examples are legion, from the evolution of wheeled vehicles to languages and religions. A currently contentious issue is whether such cumulative cultural evolution is unique to our species, or is shared in some ways with others. Other current areas of uncertainty include which cognitive mechanisms underlie animal social learning and whether the precision of animal social learning can support long-lasting traditions; the degree to which animal cultures extend broadly enough across behavioral repertoires, or deeply enough in the complexity of individual traits, to be usefully compared to those of humans; and whether culture creates selection pressures that are long lasting enough to shape animals’ genomes. In general, while it is very clear that human culture is more extensive than in any other species, there is less agreement about which qualitative differences in psychological and cultural processes are responsible for this gulf.


Author(s):  
William Hoppitt ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

Many animals, including humans, acquire valuable skills and knowledge by copying others. Scientists refer to this as social learning. It is one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of behavioral research and sits at the interface of many academic disciplines, including biology, experimental psychology, economics, and cognitive neuroscience. This book provides a comprehensive, practical guide to the research methods of this important emerging field. It defines the mechanisms thought to underlie social learning and demonstrate how to distinguish them experimentally in the laboratory. It presents techniques for detecting and quantifying social learning in nature, including statistical modeling of the spatial distribution of behavior traits. It also describes the latest theory and empirical findings on social learning strategies, and introduces readers to mathematical methods and models used in the study of cultural evolution. This book is an indispensable tool for researchers and an essential primer for students.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Noël Haidle ◽  
Oliver Schlaudt

AbstractIn our recent article, "Where Does Cumulative Culture Begin? A Plea for a Sociologically Informed Perspective" (Haidle and Schlaudt in Biol Theory 15:161–174, 2020) we commented on a fundamental notion in current approaches to cultural evolution, the “zones of latent solutions” (henceforth ZLS), and proposed a modification of it, namely a social and dynamic interpretation of the latent solutions which were originally introduced within an individualistic framework and as static, genetically fixed entities. This modification seemed, and still seems, relevant to us and, in particular, more adequate for coping with the archaeological record. Bandini et al. (Biol Theory, 2021) rejected our proposition and deemed it unnecessary. In their critique, they focused on: (1) our reservations about an individualistic approach; (2) our objections to the presumption of fully naive individuals; and (3) our demand for an extended consideration of forms of social learning simpler than emulation and imitation. We will briefly reply to their critique in order to clarify some misunderstandings. However, the criticisms also show that we are at an impasse on certain crucial topics, such as the meaning of ZLS and the scope and nature of culture in general. Thus, we consider it necessary to make an additional effort to identify the conceptual roots which are at the very basis of the dissent with Bandini et al.


2021 ◽  
pp. 095679762110322
Author(s):  
Marcel Montrey ◽  
Thomas R. Shultz

Surprisingly little is known about how social groups influence social learning. Although several studies have shown that people prefer to copy in-group members, these studies have failed to resolve whether group membership genuinely affects who is copied or whether group membership merely correlates with other known factors, such as similarity and familiarity. Using the minimal-group paradigm, we disentangled these effects in an online social-learning game. In a sample of 540 adults, we found a robust in-group-copying bias that (a) was bolstered by a preference for observing in-group members; (b) overrode perceived reliability, warmth, and competence; (c) grew stronger when social information was scarce; and (d) even caused cultural divergence between intermixed groups. These results suggest that people genuinely employ a copy-the-in-group social-learning strategy, which could help explain how inefficient behaviors spread through social learning and how humans maintain the cultural diversity needed for cumulative cultural evolution.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Mesoudi

AbstractHow do migration and acculturation (i.e. psychological or behavioral change resulting from migration) affect within- and between-group cultural variation? Here I answer this question by drawing analogies between genetic and cultural evolution. Population genetic models show that migration rapidly breaks down between-group genetic structure. In cultural evolution, however, migrants or their descendants can acculturate to local behaviors via social learning processes such as conformity, potentially preventing migration from eliminating between-group cultural variation. An analysis of the empirical literature on migration suggests that acculturation is common, with second and subsequent migrant generations shifting, sometimes substantially, towards the cultural values of the adopted society. Yet there is little understanding of the individual-level dynamics that underlie these population-level shifts. To explore this formally, I present models quantifying the effect of migration and acculturation on between-group cultural variation, for both neutral and costly cooperative traits. In the models, between-group cultural variation, measured using F statistics, is eliminated by migration and maintained by conformist acculturation. The extent of acculturation is determined by the strength of conformist bias and the number of demonstrators from whom individuals learn. Acculturation is countered by assortation, the tendency for individuals to preferentially interact with culturally-similar others. Unlike neutral traits, cooperative traits can additionally be maintained by payoff-biased social learning, but only in the presence of strong sanctioning institutions. Overall, the models show that surprisingly little conformist acculturation is required to maintain realistic amounts of between-group cultural diversity. While these models provide insight into the potential dynamics of acculturation and migration in cultural evolution, they also highlight the need for more empirical research into the individual-level learning biases that underlie migrant acculturation.


Author(s):  
William Hoppitt ◽  
Kevin N. Laland

This chapter describes a variety of approaches to modeling social learning, cultural evolution, and gene-culture coevolution. The model-building exercise typically starts with a set of assumptions about the key processes to be explored, along with the nature of their relations. These assumptions are then translated into the mathematical expressions that constitute the model. The operation of the model is then investigated, normally using a combination of analytical mathematical techniques and simulation, to determine relevant outcomes, such as the equilibrium states or patterns of change over time. The chapter presents examples of the modeling of cultural transmission and considers parallels between cultural and biological evolution. It then discusses theoretical approaches to social learning and cultural evolution, including population-genetic style models of cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution, neutral models and random copying, social foraging theory, spatially explicit models, reaction-diffusion models, agent-based models, and phylogenetic models.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 182084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Smolla ◽  
Charlotte Rosher ◽  
R. Tucker Gilman ◽  
Susanne Shultz

Individuals vary in their propensity to use social learning, the engine of cultural evolution, to acquire information about their environment. The causes of those differences, however, remain largely unclear. Using an agent-based model, we tested the hypothesis that as a result of reproductive skew differences in energetic requirements for reproduction affect the value of social information. We found that social learning is associated with lower variance in yield and is more likely to evolve in risk-averse low-skew populations than in high-skew populations. Reproductive skew may also result in sex differences in social information use, as empirical data suggest that females are often more risk-averse than males. To explore how risk may affect sex differences in learning strategies, we simulated learning in sexually reproducing populations where one sex experiences more reproductive skew than the other. When both sexes compete for the same resources, they tend to adopt extreme strategies: the sex with greater reproductive skew approaches pure individual learning and the other approaches pure social learning. These results provide insight into the conditions that promote individual and species level variation in social learning and so may affect cultural evolution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 287 (1928) ◽  
pp. 20200090
Author(s):  
Marcel Montrey ◽  
Thomas R. Shultz

A defining feature of human culture is that knowledge and technology continually improve over time. Such cumulative cultural evolution (CCE) probably depends far more heavily on how reliably information is preserved than on how efficiently it is refined. Therefore, one possible reason that CCE appears diminished or absent in other species is that it requires accurate but specialized forms of social learning at which humans are uniquely adept. Here, we develop a Bayesian model to contrast the evolution of high-fidelity social learning, which supports CCE, against low-fidelity social learning, which does not. We find that high-fidelity transmission evolves when (1) social and (2) individual learning are inexpensive, (3) traits are complex, (4) individual learning is abundant, (5) adaptive problems are difficult and (6) behaviour is flexible. Low-fidelity transmission differs in many respects. It not only evolves when (2) individual learning is costly and (4) infrequent but also proves more robust when (3) traits are simple and (5) adaptive problems are easy. If conditions favouring the evolution of high-fidelity transmission are stricter (3 and 5) or harder to meet (2 and 4), this could explain why social learning is common, but CCE is rare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document