“It's a Wonderful Life”
Abstract
Intensive food sharing among foragers and horticulturists is commonly explained as a means of reducing the risk of daily shortfalls, ensuring adequate daily consumption for all group members who actively pool resources. Consistently high food producers who give more than they receive, however, gain the least risk-reduction benefit from this daily pooling because they are the least likely to go without food on any given day. Why then do some high producers consistently share food, and why do some average producers share proportionally more food than others? We propose that although these individuals may not receive the same amounts they give (i.e., strict Tit-for-Tat), one explanation for their generosity is that they receive additional food during hard times. These include brief episodes of sickness, disease, injury, or accidents-fairly common events in traditional societies that can render individuals incapable of producing food, thereby having long-term effects on morbidity and fecundity and ultimately on lifetime reproductive success. Data collected among the Ache, a group of South American forager-horticulturists, indicate that those who shared and produced more than average (signaling cooperative intent and/or ability to produce) were rewarded with more food from more people when injured or sick than those who shared and produced below average. These results, framed within the context of tradeoffs between short-term and long-term fitness, may provide insight into motivations behind costly expenditures for establishing and reinforcing status and reputation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This pattern of in-group health care lowering mortality seems to characterize numerous traditional human societies in the ethnographic record.
“This pattern, in general, seems to characterize numerous traditional human societies in the ethnographic record (Gurven et al. 2000; Hill & Hurtado 2009; Sugiyama 2004; Sugiyama & Sugiyama 2003).”
From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Gurven et al. 2000
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 332
- Authors
- Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gurven, Michael
- Venue
- Evolution and Human Behavior
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 263-282
- ISSN
- 1090-5138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W85988172
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 32.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evolution and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Leakey Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- food sharing, Ache, reciprocity, tit-for-tat, risk mitigation, food production, reproductive success, costly signaling, cooperative behavior
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review