Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Kin Preference and Partner Choice.David A. Nolin - 2011 - Human Nature 22 (1-2):156-176.
    This paper presents a comparison of social kinship (patrilineage) and biological kinship (genetic relatedness) in predicting cooperative relationships in two different economic contexts in the fishing and whaling village of Lamalera, Indonesia. A previous analysis (Alvard, Human Nature 14:129–163, 2003) of boat crew affiliation data collected in the village in 1999 found that social kinship (patrilineage) was a better predictor of crew affiliation than was genetic kinship. A replication of this analysis using similar data collected in 2006 finds the same (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar.Doug Jones - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):367-381.
    Research in anthropology has shown that kin terminologies have a complex combinatorial structure and vary systematically across cultures. This article argues that universals and variation in kin terminology result from the interaction of (1) an innate conceptual structure of kinship, homologous with conceptual structure in other domains, and (2) principles of optimal, “grammatical” communication active in language in general. Kin terms from two languages, English and Seneca, show how terminologies that look very different on the surface may result from variation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Revisiting Psychological Mechanisms in the Anthropology of Altruism.Joseph Hackman, Shirajum Munira, Khaleda Jasmin & Daniel Hruschka - 2017 - Human Nature 28 (1):76-91.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • The Foundation of Kinship.Donna L. Leonetti & Benjamin Chabot-Hanowell - 2011 - Human Nature 22 (1-2):16-40.
    Men’s hunting has dominated the discourse on energy capture and flow in the past decade or so. We turn to women’s roles as critical to household formation, pair-bonding, and intergenerational bonds. Their pivotal contributions in food processing and distribution likely promoted kinship, both genetic and affinal, and appear to be the foundation from which households evolved. With conscious recognition of household social units, variable cultural constructions of human kinship systems that were sensitive to environmental and technological conditions could emerge. Kinship (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Why do we need to coordinate when classifying kin?Drew Gerkey & Lee Cronk - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (5):385-386.
    We suggest that there are two coordination games when it comes to understanding kin terminology. Jones' article focuses on the linguistic coordination inherent in developing meaningful kin terminologies, alluding briefly to the benefits of these kin terminologies for coordination in other domains. We enhance Jones' discussion by tracing the links between the structure of kin terminologies and their functions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Household and Kin Provisioning by Hadza Men.Brian M. Wood & Frank W. Marlowe - 2013 - Human Nature 24 (3):280-317.
    We use data collected among Hadza hunter-gatherers between 2005 and 2009 to examine hypotheses about the causes and consequences of men’s foraging and food sharing. We find that Hadza men foraged for a range of food types, including fruit, honey, small animals, and large game. Large game were shared not like common goods, but in ways that significantly advantaged producers’ households. Food sharing and consumption data show that men channeled the foods they produced to their wives, children, and their consanguineal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Reciprocity on Demand.Michael Schnegg - 2015 - Human Nature 26 (3):313-330.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The Relative Importance of “Cooperative Context” and Kinship in Structuring Cooperative Behavior.Guro Lovise Hole Fisktjønmo, Marius Warg Næss & Bård-Jørgen Bårdsen - 2021 - Human Nature 32 (4):677-705.
    Kin relations have a strong theoretical and empirical basis for explaining cooperative behavior. Nevertheless, there is growing recognition that context—the cooperative environment of an individual—also shapes the willingness of individuals to cooperate. For nomadic pastoralists in Norway, cooperation among both kin and non-kin is an essential predictor for success. The northern parts of the country are characterized by a history of herder-herder competition exacerbating between-herder conflict, lack of trust, and subsequent coordination problems. In contrast, because of a history of herder-farmer (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Foraging Performance, Prosociality, and Kin Presence Do Not Predict Lifetime Reproductive Success in Batek Hunter-Gatherers.Thomas S. Kraft, Vivek V. Venkataraman, Ivan Tacey, Nathaniel J. Dominy & Kirk M. Endicott - 2019 - Human Nature 30 (1):71-97.
    Identifying the determinants of reproductive success in small-scale societies is critical for understanding how natural selection has shaped human evolution and behavior. The available evidence suggests that status-accruing behaviors such as hunting and prosociality are pathways to reproductive success, but social egalitarianism may diminish this pathway. Here we introduce a mixed longitudinal/cross-sectional dataset based on 45 years of research with the Batek, a population of egalitarian rain forest hunter-gatherers in Peninsular Malaysia, and use it to test the effects of four (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Could Religions Augment Cooperation by Recruiting Hamilton’s Rule through the Use of Fictive Kinship Language?Andrew Ross Atkinson - 2023 - Journal of Cognition and Culture 23 (3-4):265-288.
    Some scholars have raised the potential functional role of fictive kinship for religion, generally. This paper seeks to develop that idea. It is argued in this paper that fictive kinship language in religion (and some other non-religious contexts) recruits traits connected to Hamilton’s rule as it is expressed inHomo sapienspsychology. The effect is that cooperation is augmented within a population that generally shares the same religious worldview. The general position is that if religions are in the business of cooperation and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark