Title |
Why do good hunters have higher reproductive success?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Human Nature, December 2004
|
DOI | 10.1007/s12110-004-1013-9 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Eric Alden Smith |
Abstract |
Anecdotal evidence from many hunter-gatherer societies suggests that successful hunters experience higher prestige and greater reproductive success. Detailed quantitative data on these patterns are now available for five widely dispersed cases (Ache, Hadza, !Kung, Lamalera, and Meriam) and indicate that better hunters exhibit higher age-corrected reproductive success than other men in their social group. Leading explanations to account for this pattern are: (1) direct provisioning of hunters' wives and offspring, (2) dyadic reciprocity, (3) indirect reciprocity, (4) costly signaling, and (5) phenotypic correlation. I examine the qualitative and quantitative evidence bearing on these explanations and conclude that although none can be definitively rejected, extensive and apparently unconditional sharing of large game somewhat weakens the first three explanations. The costly signaling explanation has support in some cases, although the exact nature of the benefits gained from mating or allying with or deferring to better hunters needs further study. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 1 | 7% |
South Africa | 1 | 7% |
United States | 1 | 7% |
Russia | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 11 | 73% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 15 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 4% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
Japan | 2 | <1% |
Finland | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Israel | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 184 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 46 | 23% |
Researcher | 33 | 16% |
Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
Other | 42 | 21% |
Unknown | 20 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 54 | 27% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 54 | 27% |
Psychology | 28 | 14% |
Arts and Humanities | 16 | 8% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 2% |
Other | 16 | 8% |
Unknown | 29 | 14% |