Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Nunn, CL; Arnold, C; Matthews, L; Borgerhoff Mulder, M
Published in: Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
December 2010

Cross-cultural anthropologists have increasingly used phylogenetic methods to study cultural variation. Because cultural behaviours can be transmitted horizontally among socially defined groups, however, it is important to assess whether phylogeny-based methods--which were developed to study vertically transmitted traits among biological taxa--are appropriate for studying group-level cultural variation. Here, we describe a spatially explicit simulation model that can be used to generate data with known degrees of horizontal donation. We review previous results from this model showing that horizontal transmission increases the type I error rate of phylogenetically independent contrasts in studies of correlated evolution. These conclusions apply to cases in which two traits are transmitted as a pair, but horizontal transmission may be less problematic when traits are unlinked. We also use the simulation model to investigate whether measures of homology (the consistency index and the retention index) can detect horizontal transmission of cultural traits. Higher rates of evolutionary change have a stronger depressive impact on measures of homology than higher rates of horizontal transmission; thus, low consistency or retention indices are not necessarily indicative of 'ethnogenesis'. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the importance of using simulations to assess the validity of methods in cross-cultural research.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences

DOI

EISSN

1471-2970

ISSN

0962-8436

Publication Date

December 2010

Volume

365

Issue

1559

Start / End Page

3807 / 3819

Related Subject Headings

  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Phylogeny
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Humans
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Cultural Evolution
  • Cross-Cultural Comparison
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 31 Biological sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Nunn, C. L., Arnold, C., Matthews, L., & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2010). Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1559), 3807–3819. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0009
Nunn, Charles L., Christian Arnold, Luke Matthews, and Monique Borgerhoff Mulder. “Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, no. 1559 (December 2010): 3807–19. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0009.
Nunn CL, Arnold C, Matthews L, Borgerhoff Mulder M. Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 2010 Dec;365(1559):3807–19.
Nunn, Charles L., et al. “Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, vol. 365, no. 1559, Dec. 2010, pp. 3807–19. Epmc, doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0009.
Nunn CL, Arnold C, Matthews L, Borgerhoff Mulder M. Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 2010 Dec;365(1559):3807–3819.
Journal cover image

Published In

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences

DOI

EISSN

1471-2970

ISSN

0962-8436

Publication Date

December 2010

Volume

365

Issue

1559

Start / End Page

3807 / 3819

Related Subject Headings

  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Phylogeny
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Humans
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Cultural Evolution
  • Cross-Cultural Comparison
  • 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences
  • 31 Biological sciences
  • 11 Medical and Health Sciences