Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35637298›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2022

Measuring frequency-dependent selection in culture.

Mitchell G Newberry, Joshua B Plotkin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Social learning with complex contagion.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  2. Signatures of selection with cultural interference.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Cultural transmission of move choice in chess.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. What are patterns of rise and decline?Royal Society open science · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mitchell G NewberryCenter for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. mgnew@umich.edu.
Joshua B PlotkinDepartments of Biology and Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. jplotkin@sas.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2349-6304
University of Michigan · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The frequency of a cultural trait can influence its tendency to be copied. We develop a maximum-likelihood method to measure such frequency-dependent selection from time series data, and we apply it to baby names and purebred dog preferences over the past century. The form of negative frequency dependence we infer among names explains their diversity patterns, and it replicates across the United States, France, Norway and the Netherlands. We find different growth rates for male versus female names, attributable to different rates of innovation, whereas biblical names enjoy a genuine selective advantage at all frequencies, which explains their predominance among top names. We show how frequency dependence emerges from a host of underlying selective mechanisms, including a preference for novelty that recapitulates boom-bust fads among dog owners. Our analysis of cultural evolution through frequency-dependent selection provides a quantitative account of social pressures to conform or to be different.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorCultural EvolutionNamesAnimalsDogsFemaleFranceHumansMaleNetherlandsNorwaySocial ConformityUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35637298
OpenAlexW3141723720

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.