伴侣选择并不能预测各国的亲社会倾向。

IF 2.2 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Scott Claessens, Thanos Kyritsis
{"title":"伴侣选择并不能预测各国的亲社会倾向。","authors":"Scott Claessens,&nbsp;Thanos Kyritsis","doi":"10.1017/ehs.2022.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Why does human prosociality vary around the world? Evolutionary models and laboratory experiments suggest that possibilities for partner choice (i.e. the ability to leave unprofitable relationships and strike up new ones) should promote cooperation across human societies. Leveraging the Global Preferences Survey (<i>n =</i> 27,125; 27 countries) and the World Values Survey (<i>n =</i> 54,728; 32 countries), we test this theory by estimating the associations between relational mobility, a socioecological measure of partner choice, and a wide variety of prosocial attitudes and behaviours, including impersonal altruism, reciprocity, trust, collective action and moral judgements of antisocial behaviour. Contrary to our pre-registered predictions, we found little evidence that partner choice is related to prosociality across countries. After controlling for shared causes of relational mobility and prosociality - environmental harshness, subsistence style and geographic and linguistic proximity - we found that only altruism and trust in people from another religion are positively related to relational mobility. We did not find positive relationships between relational mobility and reciprocity, generalised trust, collective action or moral judgements. These findings challenge evolutionary theories of human cooperation which emphasise partner choice as a key explanatory mechanism, and highlight the need to generalise models and experiments to global samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":36414,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","volume":"4 ","pages":"e54"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426035/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.\",\"authors\":\"Scott Claessens,&nbsp;Thanos Kyritsis\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ehs.2022.51\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Why does human prosociality vary around the world? Evolutionary models and laboratory experiments suggest that possibilities for partner choice (i.e. the ability to leave unprofitable relationships and strike up new ones) should promote cooperation across human societies. Leveraging the Global Preferences Survey (<i>n =</i> 27,125; 27 countries) and the World Values Survey (<i>n =</i> 54,728; 32 countries), we test this theory by estimating the associations between relational mobility, a socioecological measure of partner choice, and a wide variety of prosocial attitudes and behaviours, including impersonal altruism, reciprocity, trust, collective action and moral judgements of antisocial behaviour. Contrary to our pre-registered predictions, we found little evidence that partner choice is related to prosociality across countries. After controlling for shared causes of relational mobility and prosociality - environmental harshness, subsistence style and geographic and linguistic proximity - we found that only altruism and trust in people from another religion are positively related to relational mobility. We did not find positive relationships between relational mobility and reciprocity, generalised trust, collective action or moral judgements. These findings challenge evolutionary theories of human cooperation which emphasise partner choice as a key explanatory mechanism, and highlight the need to generalise models and experiments to global samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"e54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426035/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.51\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

为什么人类的亲社会性在世界各地有所不同?进化模型和实验室实验表明,伴侣选择的可能性(即离开无利可图的关系并建立新关系的能力)应该促进人类社会的合作。利用全球偏好调查(n = 27125;27个国家)和世界价值观调查(n = 54,728;32个国家),我们通过估算关系流动性(伴侣选择的社会生态衡量标准)与各种亲社会态度和行为(包括非个人利他主义、互惠、信任、集体行动和反社会行为的道德判断)之间的关联来检验这一理论。与我们预先登记的预测相反,我们发现几乎没有证据表明伴侣选择与各国的亲社会性有关。在控制了关系流动和亲社会的共同原因——环境严酷、生存方式、地理和语言接近——之后,我们发现只有利他主义和对来自另一个宗教的人的信任与关系流动呈正相关。我们没有发现关系流动性与互惠、普遍信任、集体行动或道德判断之间存在正相关关系。这些发现挑战了人类合作的进化理论,这些理论强调伙伴选择是一个关键的解释机制,并强调了将模型和实验推广到全球样本的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries.

Why does human prosociality vary around the world? Evolutionary models and laboratory experiments suggest that possibilities for partner choice (i.e. the ability to leave unprofitable relationships and strike up new ones) should promote cooperation across human societies. Leveraging the Global Preferences Survey (n = 27,125; 27 countries) and the World Values Survey (n = 54,728; 32 countries), we test this theory by estimating the associations between relational mobility, a socioecological measure of partner choice, and a wide variety of prosocial attitudes and behaviours, including impersonal altruism, reciprocity, trust, collective action and moral judgements of antisocial behaviour. Contrary to our pre-registered predictions, we found little evidence that partner choice is related to prosociality across countries. After controlling for shared causes of relational mobility and prosociality - environmental harshness, subsistence style and geographic and linguistic proximity - we found that only altruism and trust in people from another religion are positively related to relational mobility. We did not find positive relationships between relational mobility and reciprocity, generalised trust, collective action or moral judgements. These findings challenge evolutionary theories of human cooperation which emphasise partner choice as a key explanatory mechanism, and highlight the need to generalise models and experiments to global samples.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Human Sciences
Evolutionary Human Sciences Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信