Cited by 290Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

Cooperative breeding in South American hunter–gatherers

Open access
Hill, Kim, Hurtado, A. Magdalena·2009·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

Evolutionary researchers have recently suggested that pre-modern human societies habitually practised cooperative breeding and that this feature helps explain human prosocial tendencies. Despite circumstantial evidence that post-reproductive females and extra-pair males both provide resources required for successful reproduction by mated pairs, no study has yet provided details about the flow of food resources by different age and sex categories to breeders and offspring, nor documented the ratio of helpers to breeders. Here, we show in two hunter–gatherer societies of South America that each breeding pair with dependent offspring on average obtained help from approximately 1.3 non-reproductive adults. Young married males and unmarried males of all ages were the main food providers, accounting for 93–100% of all excess food production available to breeding pairs and their offspring. Thus, each breeding pair with dependants was provisioned on average by 0.8 adult male helpers. The data provide no support for the hypothesis that post-reproductive females are the main provisioners of younger reproductive-aged kin in hunter–gatherer societies. Demographic and food acquisition data show that most breeding pairs can expect food deficits owing to foraging luck, health disabilities and accumulating dependency ratio of offspring in middle age, and that extra-pair provisioning may be essential to the evolved human life history.

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 · 10.1098/rspb.2009.1061

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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 Hill & Hurtado 2009

    Section 3 says food transfers buffer shortfalls caused by health disabilities and are required for optimal health and survival; it also reports help for sick or injured Ache hunters. The Introduction describes care for debilitated people as common in foraging societies. The paper does not establish that such care lowers mortality across numerous traditional societies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2009-08-19
Volume
276
Issue
1674
Pages
3863-3870
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2152926170
Cited by
290
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
21.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Keywords
cooperative breeding, hunter-gatherers, food provisioning, helpers at the nest, kinship, life history, dependency ratio, foraging, prosocial behavior, South American indigenous peoples
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Female, Food, Helping Behavior, Humans, Male, Reproduction, South America, Time Factors, Trees

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