Cargando…
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 Prefe...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.51 |
_version_ | 1785089966070562816 |
---|---|
author | Claessens, Scott Kyritsis, Thanos |
author_facet | Claessens, Scott Kyritsis, Thanos |
author_sort | Claessens, Scott |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10426035 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104260352023-08-16 Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries Claessens, Scott Kyritsis, Thanos Evol Hum Sci Research Article 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. Cambridge University Press 2022-11-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10426035/ /pubmed/37588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.51 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Claessens, Scott Kyritsis, Thanos Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title | Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title_full | Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title_fullStr | Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title_full_unstemmed | Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title_short | Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
title_sort | partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426035/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2022.51 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT claessensscott partnerchoicedoesnotpredictprosocialityacrosscountries AT kyritsisthanos partnerchoicedoesnotpredictprosocialityacrosscountries |