Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 328

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review [and Comments and Reply]

Smith, Eric Alden, Bettinger, Robert L., Bishop, Charles A., Blundell, Valda, Cashdan, Elizabeth, Casimir, Michael J., Christenson, Andrew L., Cox, Bruce, Dyson-Hudson, Rada, Hayden, Brian, Richerson, Peter J., Roth, Eric Abella, Simms, Steven R., Stini, W. A.·1983·Current Anthropology
DOI 10.1086/203066
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent applications of models of optimal foraging behavior to human foraging economies are summarized and evaluated. These models predict patterns of prey choice, habitat use, time allocation, settlement pattern, and foraging group size that will maximize some objective currency (such as the net rate of energy capture while foraging) under the constraints of resource characteristics and forager capabilities pertaining to a particular situation. Issues raised in anthropological critiques of optimal foraging theory are also discussed, including (1) the models' degree of realism, (2) the validity of neo-Darwinian assumptions and simple energetic-efficiency currencies, (3) the need to incorporate the effects of risk and uncertainty, and (4) the relation of individual decision-making to processes occuring at larger spatial and temporal scales. Despite the validity of certain criticisms, optimal foraging theory appears to offer a useful addition to more orthodox analyses of hunter-gatherer subsistence patterns and may help reconcile the empirically described diversity of these patterns with the search for general explanations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/203066

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 328

Metadata

Authors
Smith, E. A., Bettinger, R. L., Bishop, C. A., Blundell, V., Cashdan, E., Casimir, M. J., Christenson, A. L., Cox, B., Dyson-Hudson, R., Hayden, B., Richerson, P. J., Roth, E. A., Simms, S. R., & Stini, W. A.
Venue
Current Anthropology
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
1983-12
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
625-651
ISSN
  • 0011-3204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5382
DOI
10.1086/203066
OpenAlex
W2286714279
Cited by
328
References
51
FWCI
12.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review [and Comments and Reply]. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/203066
The paper
Smith, E. A., Bettinger, R. L., Bishop, C. A., Blundell, V., Cashdan, E., Casimir, M. J., Christenson, A. L., Cox, B., Dyson-Hudson, R., Hayden, B., Richerson, P. J., Roth, E. A., Simms, S. R., & Stini, W. A. (1983). Anthropological Applications of Optimal Foraging Theory: A Critical Review [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1086/203066

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.