There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
<p class="first" id="d10578274e174">In the last decade, cultural transmission experiments
(transmission chains, replacement,
closed groups and seeded groups) have become important experimental tools in investigating
cultural evolution. However, these methods face important challenges, especially regarding
the operationalization of theoretical claims. In this review, we focus on the study
of cumulative cultural evolution, the process by which traditions are gradually modified
and, for technological traditions in particular, improved upon over time. We identify
several mismatches between theoretical definitions of cumulative culture and their
implementation in cultural transmission experiments. We argue that observed performance
increase can be the result of participants learning faster in a group context rather
than effectively leading to a cumulative effect. We also show that in laboratory experiments,
participants are asked to complete quite simple tasks, which can undermine the evidential
value of the diagnostic criterion traditionally used for cumulative culture (i.e.
that cumulative culture is a process that produces solutions that no single individual
could have invented on their own). We show that the use of unidimensional metrics
of cumulativeness drastically curtail the variation that may be observed, which raises
specific issues in the interpretation of the experimental evidence. We suggest several
solutions to these mismatches (learning times, task complexity and variation) and
develop the use of design spaces in experimentally investigating old and new questions
about cumulative culture.
</p>
Expert and exceptional performance are shown to be mediated by cognitive and perceptual-motor skills and by domain-specific physiological and anatomical adaptations. The highest levels of human performance in different domains can only be attained after around ten years of extended, daily amounts of deliberate practice activities. Laboratory analyses of expert performance in many domains such as chess, medicine, auditing, computer programming, bridge, physics, sports, typing, juggling, dance, and music reveal maximal adaptations of experts to domain-specific constraints. For example, acquired anticipatory skills circumvent general limits on reaction time, and distinctive memory skills allow a domain-specific expansion of working memory capacity to support planning, reasoning, and evaluation. Many of the mechanisms of superior expert performance serve the dual purpose of mediating experts' current performance and of allowing continued improvement of this performance in response to informative feedback during practice activities.
Some researchers have claimed that chimpanzee and human culture rest on homologous cognitive and learning mechanisms. While clearly there are some homologous mechanisms, we argue here that there are some different mechanisms at work as well. Chimpanzee cultural traditions represent behavioural biases of different populations, all within the species' existing cognitive repertoire (what we call the 'zone of latent solutions') that are generated by founder effects, individual learning and mostly product-oriented (rather than process-oriented) copying. Human culture, in contrast, has the distinctive characteristic that it accumulates modifications over time (what we call the 'ratchet effect'). This difference results from the facts that (i) human social learning is more oriented towards process than product and (ii) unique forms of human cooperation lead to active teaching, social motivations for conformity and normative sanctions against non-conformity. Together, these unique processes of social learning and cooperation lead to humans' unique form of cumulative cultural evolution.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.