Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Experimental evidence for the influence of group size on cultural complexity

Abstract

The remarkable ecological and demographic success of humanity is largely attributed to our capacity for cumulative culture1,2,3. The accumulation of beneficial cultural innovations across generations is puzzling because transmission events are generally imperfect, although there is large variance in fidelity. Events of perfect cultural transmission and innovations should be more frequent in a large population4. As a consequence, a large population size may be a prerequisite for the evolution of cultural complexity4,5, although anthropological studies have produced mixed results6,7,8,9 and empirical evidence is lacking10. Here we use a dual-task computer game to show that cultural evolution strongly depends on population size, as players in larger groups maintained higher cultural complexity. We found that when group size increases, cultural knowledge is less deteriorated, improvements to existing cultural traits are more frequent, and cultural trait diversity is maintained more often. Our results demonstrate how changes in group size can generate both adaptive cultural evolution and maladaptive losses of culturally acquired skills. As humans live in habitats for which they are ill-suited without specific cultural adaptations11,12, it suggests that, in our evolutionary past, group-size reduction may have exposed human societies to significant risks, including societal collapse13.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Group size affects the maintenance of cultural tasks.
Figure 2: Larger groups favour improvements to the simple cultural trait.
Figure 3: Larger groups prevent degradation of the complex cultural trait.

References

  1. 1

    Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Culture and the Evolutionary Process (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1985)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C. & Ratner, H. H. Cultural learning. Behav. Brain Sci. 16, 495–511 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Not by Genes Alone (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Henrich, J. Demography and cultural evolution: how adaptive cultural processes can produce maladaptive losses: the Tasmanian case. Am. Antiq. 69, 197–214 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Powell, A., Shennan, S. & Thomas, M. G. Late Pleistocene demography and the appearance of modern human behavior. Science 324, 1298–1301 (2009)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Kline, M. A. & Boyd, R. Population size predicts technological complexity in Oceania. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2559–2564 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Read, D. Population size does not predict artifact complexity: analysis of data from tasmania, arctic hunter-gatherers, and oceania fishing groups. UC Los Angeles: Hum. Complex Systems http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/61n4303q (2012)

  8. 8

    Collard, M., Kemery, M. & Banks, S. Causes of toolkit variation among hunter-gatherers: a test of four competing hypotheses. Can. J. Archaeol. 29, 1–19 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Read, D. An interaction model for resource implement complexity based on risk and number of annual moves. Am. Antiq. 73, 599–625 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Caldwell, C. A. & Millen, A. E. Human cumulative culture in the laboratory: effects of (micro) population size. Learn. Behav. 38, 310–318 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Henrich, J. & Broesch, J. On the nature of cultural transmission networks: evidence from Fijian villages for adaptive learning biases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 366, 1139–1148 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. The cultural niche: why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10918–10925 (2011)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Diamond, J. The Tasmanians — the longest isolation, the simplest technology. Nature 273, 185–186 (1978)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Why does culture increase human adaptability. Ethol. Sociobiol. 16, 125–143 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Why culture is common, but cultural evolution is rare? Proc. Br. Acad. 88, 77–93 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Tomasello, M. In Social Learning in Animals: the Roots of Culture (eds Heyes, C. M. & Galef, B. G. ) 319–346 (Academic, 1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Tennie, C., Call, J. & Tomasello, M. Ratcheting up the ratchet: on the evolution of cumulative culture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 2405–2415 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Lewis, H. M. & Laland, K. N. Transmission fidelity is the key to the build-up of cumulative culture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 367, 2171–2180 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Dean, L. G., Kendal, R. L., Schapiro, S. J., Thierry, B. & Laland, K. N. Identification of the social and cognitive processes underlying human cumulative culture. Science 335, 1114–1118 (2012)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Derex, M., Godelle, B. & Raymond, M. Social learners require process information to outperform individual learners. Evolution 67, 688–697 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Claidière, N. & Sperber, D. Imitation explains the propagation, not the stability of animal culture. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 651–659 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Diamond, J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies (W. W. Norton, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Marquet, P. A. et al. Emergence of social complexity among coastal hunter-gatherers in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14754–14760 (2012)

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Krause, J., Ruxton, G. D. & Krause, S. Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 28–34 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Basalla, G. The Evolution of Technology (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Henrich, J. & Boyd, R. On modeling cognition and culture: Why cultural evolution does not require replication of representations. J. Cogn. Cult. 2, 87–112 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Smaldino, P. E. The cultural evolution of emergent group-level traits. Behav. Brain Sci (in the press)

  28. 28

    Flynn, E. & Whiten, A. Studying children's social learning experimentally “in the wild”. Learn. Behav. 38, 284–296 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank R. Belkhir for help in establishing the Stuctured Qwery Language database, D. Dubois for recruiting participants and organizing the experimental sessions, and the Laboratory of Experimental Economics of Montpellier (University of Montpellier I) for hosting the experiment. Contribution ISEM 2013-146.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.D., B.G. and M.R. designed the study. M.-P.B. and M.D. collected data. M.D., M.P.B. and M.R. analysed the data. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxime Derex.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Cultural tasks.

a, Rectangular grid composed of 35 attaching points in which to draw an arrowhead. The spacing between the attaching points was modifiable. b, An example of an arrowhead. c, Square grid composed of 25 attaching points in which to build a fishing net. The spacing between the attaching points was modifiable. d, An example of a fishing net.

Extended Data Figure 2 Best within-group information associated with the simple task, when conserved within the group.

Performance is measured using arbitrary life units. Plotted are the mean values ± s.e.m. Considering only the performance of the groups that conserved the task (see Methods), the simple task of the cultural package was improved in all group sizes (mean performance: 2-player groups = 2,000, t = 4.90, d.f. = 10, P = 0.0006; 4-player groups = 2,085, t = 11.12, d.f. = 8, P < 0.0001; 8-player groups = 2,166, t = 18.84, d.f. = 11, P < 0.0001; 16-player groups = 2,242, t = 27.57, d.f. = 11, P < 0.0001). Group size had a linear effect on the performance of the best within-group arrowhead (F1,41 = 15.3, P = 0.0003). The horizontal line shows the performance of the arrowhead from the cultural package.

Extended Data Figure 3 Best within-group information associated with the complex task, when conserved within the group.

Performance is measured using arbitrary life units. Plotted are the mean values ± s.e.m. Only 4 2-player groups (26.7%) conserved the complex task and were therefore excluded from the analysis. The complex task was stable in the 4-player groups (mean performance = 2,669, t = 0.01, d.f. = 5, P = 0.99) and improved in the larger groups. The difference between 8-player groups and the demonstration of the cultural package was significant (mean = 4,059, t = 6.79, d.f. = 7, P = 0.0001, one-sided) but marginally significant concerning 16-player groups (mean = 3,108, t = 1.40, d.f. = 9, P = 0.09, one-sided). Group size had a linear and an unexpected quadratic effect on the performance of the best within-group fishing net (F1,24 = 10.6, P = 0.003 and F1,24 = 9.88, P = 0.004, respectively). This quadratic effect could indicate that participants had trouble making use of the information in a large group, but our experimental design allows us to rule out this possibility (see Supplementary Information). Instead, early performances of 16-player groups affected the probability of observing the cultural-package demonstration, hindering players from acquiring pivotal information (see Extended Data Fig. 4 and Supplementary Information). The horizontal line shows the performance of the fishing net from the cultural package.

Extended Data Figure 4 Best within-group information associated with a fishing net (when conserved within the group) across time.

The red line shows 16-player groups and the blue line shows 8-player groups. Performance is measured using arbitrary life units. Plotted are the mean values ± s.e.m. At the beginning of the game, the 16-player groups performed better than the 8-player groups (F1,22 = 21.7, P = 0.0001), as expected. However, the opposite was observed at the end of the game (F1,16 = 5.68, P = 0.03). During the first three trials, the performance associated with the best within-group fishing net affected the probability of observing the cultural-package demonstration. Thus, the probability of observing the cultural-package demonstration was lower in 16-player groups compared with 8-player groups. A lower rate of observation of the cultural-package reduced the group performance suggesting that the observation of demonstrations from other sources hindered the acquisition of pivotal information (see Supplementary Information for details). It suggests that, under specific conditions, the increasing number of valuable sources of information associated with larger group size could lead to a suboptimal cultural evolution rate. The horizontal solid line shows the performance of the fishing net from the cultural package. The horizontal dashed line shows the players’ daily needs.

Related audio

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Results about individual copying fidelity for each of the two tasks and a Supplementary Discussion about the quadratic effect of group size on the complex task improvement. (PDF 149 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Derex, M., Beugin, MP., Godelle, B. et al. Experimental evidence for the influence of group size on cultural complexity. Nature 503, 389–391 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12774

Download citation

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing