6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The origins of human prosociality: Cultural group selection in the workplace and the laboratory

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As predicted by cultural group selection, increases in firm-level competition raise the generalized trust of workers.

          Abstract

          Human prosociality toward nonkin is ubiquitous and almost unique in the animal kingdom. It remains poorly understood, although a proliferation of theories has arisen to explain it. We present evidence from survey data and laboratory treatment of experimental subjects that is consistent with a set of theories based on group-level selection of cultural norms favoring prosociality. In particular, increases in competition increase trust levels of individuals who (i) work in firms facing more competition, (ii) live in states where competition increases, (iii) move to more competitive industries, and (iv) are placed into groups facing higher competition in a laboratory experiment. The findings provide support for cultural group selection as a contributor to human prosociality.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring Trust*

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence.

              Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete, and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is "no," then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence, including quantitative evidence, that the answer to all of the questions is "yes" and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies, then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sci Adv
                Sci Adv
                SciAdv
                advances
                Science Advances
                American Association for the Advancement of Science
                2375-2548
                September 2018
                19 September 2018
                : 4
                : 9
                : eaat2201
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of British Columbia, Vancouver School of Economics, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
                [2 ]Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
                [3 ]Department of Economics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
                [4 ]National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
                [5 ]Aix Marseille University, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, Marseille, France.
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Email: patrick.francois@ 123456ubc.ca
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3287-037X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5739-6769
                Article
                aat2201
                10.1126/sciadv.aat2201
                6154982
                30255142
                8633ed00-5999-4b7d-be62-cac7fefd63a8
                Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License 4.0 (CC BY-NC).

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, so long as the resultant use is not for commercial advantage and provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 05 February 2018
                : 06 August 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: doi http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100007631, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research;
                Funded by: doi http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000155, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada;
                Funded by: doi http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004795, Institut Universitaire de France;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                SciAdv r-articles
                Social Sciences
                Custom metadata
                Jeanelle Ebreo

                Comments

                Comment on this article