Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36522390›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

The method of exclusion (still) cannot identify specific mechanisms of cultural inheritance.

Alberto Acerbi, William Daniel Snyder, Claudio Tennie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Brokering peace in the ape (culture) wars.Evolutionary human sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

Alberto AcerbiDivision of Psychology, Centre for Culture and Evolution, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK. alberto.acerbi@brunel.ac.uk.
William Daniel SnyderFaculty of Science, Department of Geosciences, WG for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Schloß Hohentübingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070, Tübingen, Germany.
Claudio TennieFaculty of Science, Department of Geosciences, WG for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Schloß Hohentübingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070, Tübingen, Germany. claudio.tennie@uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

European Research Council 714658
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The method of exclusion identifies patterns of distributions of behaviours and/or artefact forms among different groups, where these patterns are deemed unlikely to arise from purely genetic and/or ecological factors. The presence of such patterns is often used to establish whether a species is cultural or not-i.e. whether a species uses social learning or not. Researchers using or describing this method have often pointed out that the method cannot pinpoint which specific type(s) of social learning resulted in the observed patterns. However, the literature continues to contain such inferences. In a new attempt to warn against these logically unwarranted conclusions, we illustrate this error using a novel approach. We use an individual-based model, focused on wild ape cultural patterns-as these patterns are the best-known cases of animal culture and as they also contain the most frequent usage of the unwarranted inference for specific social learning mechanisms. We built a model that contained agents unable to copy specifics of behavioural or artefact forms beyond their individual reach (which we define as "copying"). We did so, as some of the previous inference claims related to social learning mechanisms revolve around copying defined in this way. The results of our model however show that non-copying social learning can already reproduce the defining-even iconic-features of observed ape cultural patterns detected by the method of exclusion. This shows, using a novel model approach, that copying processes are not necessary to produce the cultural patterns that are sometimes still used in an attempt to identify copying processes. Additionally, our model could fully control for both environmental and genetic factors (impossible in real life) and thus offers a new validity check for the method of exclusion as related to general cultural claims-a check that the method passed. Our model also led to new and additional findings, which we likewise discuss.

Indexed as

Cultural EvolutionHominidaeSocial LearningAnimalsDatabases, GeneticSocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID36522390
PMCPMC9755256

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.