Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36107352›Full record

ArticleHuman nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.)2022

Does Group Contact Shape Styles of Pictorial Representation? A Case Study of Australian Rock Art.

C Granito, J J Tehrani, J R Kendal, T C Scott-Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Is Ornamentation a Universal Human Preference? Cross-Cultural and Developmental Evidence From Scotland, Pakistan, and Papua.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior
    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

4 authors.

C GranitoDepartment of Anthropology, Durham Cultural Evolution Research Centre, Durham University, DH13LE, Durham, UK. carmen.granito@durham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9335-6510
J J TehraniDepartment of Anthropology, Durham Cultural Evolution Research Centre, Durham University, DH13LE, Durham, UK.
J R KendalDepartment of Anthropology, Durham Cultural Evolution Research Centre, Durham University, DH13LE, Durham, UK.
T C Scott-PhillipsDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

economic and social research council economic and social research councileuropean human behaviour and evolution association european human behaviour and evolution association
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Image-making is a nearly universal human behavior, yet the visual strategies and conventions to represent things in pictures vary greatly over time and space. In particular, pictorial styles can differ in their degree of figurativeness, varying from intersubjectively recognizable representations of things to very stylized and abstract forms. Are there any patterns to this variability, and what might its ecological causes be? Experimental studies have shown that demography and the structure of interaction of cultural groups can play a key role: the greater the degree of contact with other groups, the more recognizable and less abstract are the representations. Here we test this hypothesis on a real-world dataset for the first time. We constructed a balanced database of Indigenous Australian rock art motifs from both isolated and contact Aboriginal groups (those often in contact with other groups). We then ran a survey asking participants to judge the recognizability of the motifs and to provide interpretations. Results show that motifs from contact Aboriginal groups were more likely to be judged as inter-subjectively recognizable and also elicited more convergent descriptions than motifs from isolated groups. This is consistent with the idea that intergroup contact is likely to be an important factor in the cultural evolution of pictorial representation. We discuss the implications of these findings for the archaeology and anthropology of art, and the parallels with language evolution.

Indexed as

AnthropologyCultural EvolutionAustraliaHumansArt stylesAustralian rock artcultural evolutionculture contactdemographygraphical communication

Identifiers

PMID36107352
PMCPMC9741576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.