ArticleHuman nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.)2013
Human identity and the evolution of societies.
Article in Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolution of identity signals for co-ordination in diverse societies.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026Article
- Perceived inequality and variability in the expression of parochial altruism.Evolutionary human sciences · 2025Article
- Kinlessness at Older Ages: Prevalence and Heterogeneity in 27 Countries.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2024Article
- Focal Coordination and Language in Human Evolution.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Signals of belonging: emergence of signalling norms as facilitators of trust and parochial cooperation.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Signalling Palaeolithic identity.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- The transition from animal to human culture-simulating the social protocell hypothesis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Human societal development: is it an evolutionary transition in individuality?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Review
- Myth of objectivity and the origin of symbols.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
- Ancestral social environments plus nonlinear benefits can explain cooperation in human societies.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Evidence from sperm whale clans of symbolic marking in non-human cultures.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Intergroup conflict: origins, dynamics and consequences across taxa.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022Article
- The evolution of barriers to exploitation: Sometimes the Red Queen can take a break.Evolutionary applications · 2021Review
- Entropy trade-offs in artistic design: A case study of TamilEvolutionary human sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- Limited Scope for Group Coordination in Stylistic Variations ofFrontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Gender-based pairings influence cooperative expectations and behaviours.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Food Sharing across Borders : First Observation of Intercommunity Meat Sharing by Bonobos at LuiKotale, DRC.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- The Evolution of Covert Signaling.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Convergence and divergence in gesture repertoires as an adaptive mechanism for social bonding in primates.Royal Society open science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human societies are examined as distinct and coherent groups. This trait is most parsimoniously considered a deeply rooted part of our ancestry rather than a recent cultural invention. Our species is the only vertebrate with society memberships of significantly more than 200. We accomplish this by using society-specific labels to identify members, in what I call an anonymous society. I propose that the human brain has evolved to permit not only the close relationships described by the social brain hypothesis, but also, at little mental cost, the anonymous societies within which such alliances are built. The human compulsion to discover or invent labels to "mark" group memberships may originally have been expressed in hominins as vocally learned greetings only slightly different in function from chimpanzee pant hoots (now known to be society-specific). The weight of evidence suggests that at some point, conceivably early in the hominin line, the distinct groups composed of several bands that were typical of our ancestors came to be distinguished by their members on the basis of multiple labels that were socially acquired in this way, the earliest of which would leave no trace in the archaeological record. Often overlooked as research subjects, these sizable fission-fusion communities, in recent egalitarian hunter-gatherers sometimes 2,000 strong, should consistently be accorded the status of societies, in the same sense that this word is used to describe tribes, chiefdoms, and other cultures arising later in our history. The capacity of hunter-gatherer societies to grow sufficiently populous that not all members necessarily recognize one another would make the transition to larger agricultural societies straightforward. Humans differ from chimpanzees in that societal labels are essential to the maintenance of societies and the processes giving birth to new ones. I propose that anonymous societies of all kinds can expand only so far as their labels can remain sufficiently stable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.