| Title |
Testing Theories about Ethnic Markers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Human Nature, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12110-015-9229-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niels Holm Jensen, Michael Bang Petersen, Henrik Høgh-Olesen, Michael Ejstrup |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 43% |
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 18 | 38% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 19% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,344,095
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#439
of 513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,101
of 267,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.