Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29440519›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2018

High-magnitude innovators as keystone individuals in the evolution of culture.

Michal Arbilly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Bridging cultural gaps: interdisciplinary studies in human cultural evolution.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michal ArbillyDepartment of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA michalarbilly@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3227-882X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Borrowing from the concept of keystone species in ecological food webs, a recent focus in the field of animal behaviour has been keystone individuals: individuals whose impact on population dynamics is disproportionally larger than their frequency in the population. In populations evolving culture, such may be the role of high-magnitude innovators: individuals whose innovations are a major departure from the population's existing behavioural repertoire. Their effect on cultural evolution is twofold: they produce innovations that constitute a 'cultural leap' and, once copied, their innovations may induce further innovations by conspecifics (socially induced innovations) as they explore the new behaviour themselves. I use computer simulations to study the coevolution of independent innovations, socially induced innovations and innovation magnitude, and show that while socially induced innovation is assumed here to be less costly than independent innovation, it does not readily evolve. When it evolves, it may in some conditions select against independent innovation and lower its frequency, despite it requiring independent innovation in order to operate; at the same time, however, it leads to much faster cultural evolution. These results confirm the role of high-magnitude innovators as keystones, and suggest a novel explanation for the low frequency of independent innovation.This article is part of the theme issue 'Bridging cultural gaps: interdisciplinary studies in human cultural evolution'.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalCultural EvolutionDiffusion of InnovationAnimalsComputer SimulationCreativityModels, Psychologicalcultural evolutioninnovation magnitudekeystone individualssocially induced innovation

Identifiers

PMID29440519
PMCPMC5812966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.