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.

ANTHROPOLOGY

Which accusations stick?

Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 19–20 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

The social function of witchcraft accusations remains opaque. An empirical study of Chinese villagers shows that the label ‘z hu’influences who interacts across a social network, but appears not to tag defectors in service of promoting cooperation. An open question thus remains: from witchcraft to gossip, which accusations stick?

But in what way do witchcraft beliefs relate to an individual’s character and reputation? A key open question is what information witchcraft labels actually convey about the accused. Some anthropologists have proposed that witchcraft accusations provide reliable information about an individual’s cooperativeness2. Under this theory, selfish defectors are labelled as witches, and the fear of stigmatization helps to maintain cooperation in the community. In contrast, others have argued that witchcraft accusations merely reflect spiteful attempts to harm one’s competitors3. To date, however, there has been very little empirical or quantitative evidence to bear on this debate.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Swanson, G. E. The Birth of the Gods: The Origin of Primitive Beliefs Vol. 93 (Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1964).

  2. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande Vol. 12 (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1937).

  3. Gershman, B. J. Dev. Econ. 120, 182–208 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mace, R. et al. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0271-6 (2018).

  5. Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. Nature 437, 1291–1298 (2005).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. Ethol. Sociobiol. 13, 171–195 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barclay, P. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27, 325–344 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jordan, J. J., Hoffman, M., Bloom, P. & Rand, D. G. Nature 530, 473–476 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dunbar, R. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 8, 100–110 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., Semmann, D. & Milinski, M. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 17435–17440 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Jillian J. Jordan

Authors
  1. Jillian J. Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jillian J. Jordan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jordan, J.J. Which accusations stick?. Nat Hum Behav 2, 19–20 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0274-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0274-3

Search

Advanced 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