Food Plants. Modern Day Inuit - Greenland Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers The San Bushmen.
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity?...
Transcript of Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity?...
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145.
Caitlin Rogers, Casey Dudley, Elizabeth Benton and Paul FerraioloDr. Mills, Psyc 452, Fall 2007
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Video
Leafcutter Ants - The First Agriculture
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Current Theories of Altruism
Reciprocal Altruism: One reciprocal partner in a dyad rewards or punishes
the other, “tit-for-tat” Strong reciprocity:
Individuals sacrifice resources for rewarding fair behavior and punishing unfair behavior
Difference: Strong Reciprocity appears
to be distinguished from Reciprocal Altruism because there is no present or futurereward for the reciprocator
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Study of “Norm Enforcement” 308 conversations The Ju/'hoansi (!Kung) Bushmen of northwest
Botswana Purpose
Examine the dynamics of reward and punishment used to enforce norms
3 Objectives dynamics of punishment costs of punishment evidence for strong reciprocity
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Institutions and Norms in Foraging Societies
Social Institutions Cooperative communities
Mutual Obligations Respect for material goods, mates, & relationship Maintenance of harmony
Egalitarianism Facilitates cooperation Age hierarchy
Extensive social ties Backup resources Through kinship, exchange, or ceremony equality & respect are emphasized
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Data and Methods
Conversations were taken from the field 1974 and 1996-97
Author did not have fluency in the Ju/’hoan language
Recorded the following points for each conversation: Topic(s) Setting Participants If included praise or punishment
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Costs of Punishing in Forager Societies
Loss of a valuable group member
Severed social ties Escalation of disputes into
violence Time and energy costs Damaged reputation for
being too critical or mean to another
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Conversation as Punishment
Four categories Put-downs through joking or mocking Mild criticism and complaint Harsh criticism and complaint Criticism plus violent acts
Table adapted from Wiessner, Polly, p 130
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Analysis and Results
Most frequent behavior that elicited punishment for both
years of study was neglect of kinship obligations 53% of all issues that elicited punishment:
trouble making reclusive behavior inappropriate sexual relations Drunkenness big-shot behavior
9% for occupation and politics 6% for jealousy
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Analysis and Results cont. Who punishes: Men and women punish for different issues
Men initiated criticisms 95% for issues involving politics and land 67% for troublemaking
Women initiated criticisms 93% for expression of jealousy over possessions 73% for stinginess, greediness, and failure to share 69% for inappropriate sexual behavior 65% for failure to meet kinship obligations
The targets of punishment Men more often than women The reasoning for this is that:
more likely to engage in disruptive behavior produced larger quantities of food and faced with broader demands for sharing men were reluctant to target women because of fear of spousal retribution
Strong individuals were criticized twice as often as average individuals
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Analysis and Results cont.
Outcomes of punishment: verbal punishment
the message was heard by the target without visible response or apology 63% of all dyadic interaction
the rallying of group opinion against the offender 26% of cases
Self-Defense is rare prefer to avoid conflict that may lead to violence
Costs of punishment Of the 124 cases of punishment:
8% had some negative repercussions for the initiators and coalition members 15% involved visible reform or expressed intent to reform on the part of the
transgressor 10% with the outcome "message heard" involved subsequent reform
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Evidence for Strong Reciprocity?
Is strong reciprocity involved in Ju/'hoansi punishment by coalitions or can willingness to punish be explained by individual interest alone? 25% of cases of punishment were aimed at regulating
reciprocal altruism in dyads the reaming cases, nepotism has some value. Second-order punishment and costly signaling appeared to
have no standing Therefore, the willingness to incur costs in punishment that
provided no direct rewards for the reciprocator lends some support to the strong reciprocity hypothesis
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Conclusion
For some cases, punishing norm violators appears to involve strong reciprocity aids in creating conditions for what has been
described as stable, cooperative breeding communities
The goal of punishment was to bring transgressors back in line through punishing, without losing valuable group members
The costs were reduced through an array of cultural mechanisms that had been finely tuned and developed over centuries
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Critical ReviewInteresting or Informative Facts
Longitudinal Study
Systematically eliminated other reciprocity theories
Today, punishment is less open and widespread due to fear
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Critical ReviewWeak or Unclear Portions
Lack of Linguistic Fluency Only 124 cases of punishment were studied Could have attempted to follow up with the
63% of outcomes of punishment where the message was heard by the target without visible response or apology.
Did not give an definitive verdict on whether it was in fact strong reciprocity.
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Discussion Questions
Why might self defense be rare in the Ju/'hoansi’s interactions but common in ours?
Do you think strong reciprocity, if encouraged at LMU, could become the norm?
Is there a parallel between men and women’s initiation of criticism in our culture?
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Review Questions (True or False)
1. Strong reciprocity requires low levels of monitoring within the group and subsequent action to bring individual behavior in line through reward and punishment.
2. The author of the study was fluent in the native language
3. Women initiated conflicts involving politics and land more often then men.
F
F
F
Wiessner, Polly (2005). Norm Enforcement among the Ju/'hoansi Bushmen: A Case of Strong Reciprocity? Human Nature, 16 (2), 115-145
Review Questions 4. Strong Reciprocity can be defined as:
a. One Reciprocal partner in a dyad rewards or punishes the otherb. The group rewards or punishes the individual on a tit-for-tat basisc. Individuals sacrifice resources for rewarding fair behavior and punishing unfair behaviord. The group sacrifices resources for rewarding fair behavior and punishing unfair behavior
Correct Answer: C
5. Which of the following did NOT elicit punishmenta. trouble makingb. extraverted behaviorc. inappropriate sexual relationsd. drunkenness
Correct Answer: B
6. Punishment was divided into categories:a. Twob. Threec. Fourd. Seven Correct Answer: C