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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Promise and peril of ecological and evolutionary modelling using cross-cultural datasets

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 6, pages 6–8 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Comparative analysis using cross-cultural data has a long tradition in anthropology and applications by ecologically minded researchers have exploded in the past decade. Here we discuss problems and recommend solutions for use of cross-cultural datasets in ecology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Kirby, K. R. et al. PLoS ONE 11, e0158391 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Murdock, G. P. Am. Anthropol. 59, 664–687 (1957).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Binford, L. R. Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets (Univ of California Press, 2001).

  4. Johnson, A. L. J. Archaeol. Res. 22, 1–42 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Murdock, G. P. & White, D. R. Ethnology 8, 329–369 (1969).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jorgensen, J. G. Western Indians: Comparative Environments, Languages, and Cultures of 172 Western American Indian Tribes (W. H. Freeman, 1980).

  7. Towner, M. C., Grote, M. N. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152184 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jorgensen, J. G. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 8, 309–331 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Asad, T. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (Ithaca Press, 1973).

  10. Shenk, M. K., Begley, R. O., Nolin, D. A. & Swiatek, A. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 374, 20190006 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murdock, G. P. & Provost, C. Ethnology 12, 203–225 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilson, K. M. & Codding, B. F. Hum. Nat. 31, 361–386 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Slingerland, E. et al. Evol. Hum. Sci. 2, e29 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tallavaara, M., Eronen, J. T. & Luoto, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 1232–1237 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Murdock, G. P. & Morrow, D. O. Ethnology 9, 302–330 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hunn, E, S. J. Ethnobiol. 1, 124–134 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rosaldo, M. Z. Signs 5, 389–417 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cashdan, E. & Steele, M. Hum. Nat. 24, 59–75 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gould, R. A. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 24, 101–122 (1968).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bliege Bird, R. & Bird, D. W. Curr. Anthropol. 49, 655–693 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bromham, L., Hua, X., Cardillo, M., Schneemann, H. & Greenhill, S. J. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 181100.

  22. Gray, J. P. Cross Cult. Res. 30, 301–315 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gavin, M. C. et al. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5, 171897 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eff, A. World Cult. 15, 153–170 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smith, E. A. & Codding, B. F. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016134118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lukas, D., Towner, M. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376, 20200057 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mathew, S. & Perreault, C. Proc. R. Soc. B 282, 20150061 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Judkins, G., Smith, M. & Keys, E. Geog. J. 174, 17–29 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lefcheck, J. S. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 573–579 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pearl, J. Stat. Surv. 3, 96–146 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Rebecca Bliege Bird

  2. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Brian F. Codding

  3. Archaeological Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Brian F. Codding

  4. Global Change and Sustainability Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Brian F. Codding

Authors
  1. Rebecca Bliege Bird
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian F. Codding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rebecca Bliege Bird or Brian F. Codding.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary text.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bliege Bird, R., Codding, B.F. Promise and peril of ecological and evolutionary modelling using cross-cultural datasets. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 6–8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01579-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01579-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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