» Articles » PMID: 26003842

Testing Theories About Ethnic Markers: Ingroup Accent Facilitates Coordination, Not Cooperation

Overview
Journal Hum Nat
Date 2015 May 25
PMID 26003842
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In recent years, evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists have debated whether ethnic markers have evolved to solve adaptive problems related to interpersonal coordination or to interpersonal cooperation. In the present study, we add to this debate by exploring how individuals living in a modern society utilize the accents of unfamiliar individuals to make social decisions in hypothetical economic games that measure interpersonal trust, generosity, and coordination. A total of 4603 Danish participants completed a verbal-guise study administered over the Internet. Participants listened to four speakers (two local and two nonlocal) and played a hypothetical Dictator Game, Trust Game, and Coordination Game with each of them. The results showed that participants had greater faith in coordinating successfully with local speakers than with nonlocal speakers. The coordination effect was strong for individuals living in the same city as the particular speakers and weakened as the geographical distance between the participants and the speakers grew. Conversely, the results showed that participants were not more generous toward or more trusting of local speakers compared with nonlocal speakers. Taken together, the results suggest that humans utilize ethnic markers of unfamiliar individuals to coordinate behavior rather than to cooperate.

Citing Articles

Language as a marker of ethnic identity among the Yucatec Maya.

Padilla-Iglesias C, Foley R, Shneidman L Evol Hum Sci. 2023; 2:e38.

PMID: 37588346 PMC: 10427450. DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2020.39.


Ethnic markers and the emergence of group-specific norms: an experiment.

Ozaita J, Baronchelli A, Sanchez A Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):5068.

PMID: 35332142 PMC: 8948296. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07981-z.


Ethnic markers and the emergence of group-specific norms.

Ozaita J, Baronchelli A, Sanchez A Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1):22219.

PMID: 33335212 PMC: 7746721. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79222-0.


Evolutionary Dynamics of Homophily and Heterophily.

Ramazi P, Cao M, Weissing F Sci Rep. 2016; 6:22766.

PMID: 26951038 PMC: 4782132. DOI: 10.1038/srep22766.

References
1.
Roberts G, Sherratt T . Behaviorial evolution: does similarity breed cooperation?. Nature. 2002; 418(6897):499-500; discussion 500. DOI: 10.1038/418499b. View

2.
Colman A . Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behav Brain Sci. 2003; 26(2):139-53. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x03000050. View

3.
Apicella C, Marlowe F, Fowler J, Christakis N . Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature. 2012; 481(7382):497-501. PMC: 3340565. DOI: 10.1038/nature10736. View

4.
Bateson M, Nettle D, Roberts G . Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biol Lett. 2006; 2(3):412-4. PMC: 1686213. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509. View

5.
Hari R, Kujala M . Brain basis of human social interaction: from concepts to brain imaging. Physiol Rev. 2009; 89(2):453-79. DOI: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2007. View