skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • The evolution of pair‐living, sexual monogamy, and cooperative infant care: Insights from research on wild owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins
Title: The evolution of pair‐living, sexual monogamy, and cooperative infant care: Insights from research on wild owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins
Abstract “Monogamy” and pair bonding have long been of interest to anthropologists and primatologists. Their study contributes to our knowledge of human evolutionary biology and social evolution without the cultural trappings associated with studying human societies directly. Here, we first provide an overview of theoretical considerations, followed by an evaluation of recent comparative studies of the evolution of “social monogamy”; we are left with serious doubts about the conclusions of these studies that stem from the often poor quality of the data used and an overreliance on secondary sources without vetting the data therein. We then describe our field research program on four “monogamous” platyrrhines (owl monkeys, titis, sakis, and tamarins), evaluate how well our data support various hypotheses proposed to explain “monogamy,” and compare our data to those reported on the same genera in comparative studies. Overall, we found a distressing lack of agreement between the data used in comparative studies and data from the literature for the taxa that we work with. In the final section, we propose areas of research that deserve more attention. We stress the need for more high‐quality natural history data, and we urge researchers to be cautious about the uncritical use of variables of uncertain internal validity. Overall, it is imperative that biological anthropologists establish and follow clear criteria for comparing and combining results from published studies and that researchers, reviewers, and editors alike comply with these standards to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and interpretability of causal inferences made in comparative studies.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1848954
PAR ID:
10458625
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
Date Published:
Journal Name:
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Volume:
171
Issue:
S70
ISSN:
0002-9483
Format(s):
Medium: X Size: p. 118-173
Size(s):
p. 118-173
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, Catalyst: Feminism, Theory, Technoscience)
    null (Ed.)
    In this paper we theorize trust as emerging in different material/infrastructural and epistemic realities as part of our multidisciplinary collaboration about water, called Neighborhood Environments as Socio-Techno-Bio Systems: Water Quality, Public Trust, and Health in Mexico City (NESTSMX)”. This collaboration, led by feminist anthropologists, brings together anthropology, environmental-public health, and environmental engineering researchers to analyze how neighborhoods as “socio-techno-bio systems” shape how people trust or distrust water. Our project follows the infrastructures and social structures that move water in and out of neighborhoods, households, and bodies making them trust it more or less. At the same time our multi-disciplinary research team inhabits different epistemic research environments that creates tensions about how we make knowledge and what counts as data. Trust and distrust then shapes how we constitute both our object of inquiry and how we know it. 
    more » « less
  2. (, WIREs Water)
    Advances in hydraulic fracturing (aka “fracking”) technologies and horizontal drilling have enabled the extraction of previously unviable unconventional oil and gas resources. However, as global environmental concerns have become more prominent and unconventional oil and gas developments have moved ever closer to residential centers, public scrutiny of the industry and its methods and impacts of extraction have increased. Water impacts feature prominently among the contemporary societal concerns about fracking. These concerns include the large water requirements of the process itself, as well as concerns about the potential pollution of groundwater and the (underground) environment more broadly. Anthropologists have undertaken qualitative field research on unconventional gas developments in a variety of settings, largely among local communities in regions of extraction. The perspectives employed by anthropologists are commonly drawn from the broader social science literature, including the anthropology of water and natural resources, science and technology studies, studies of social movements, and studies which examine the energy‐society nexus. Based on the shortcomings of the published anthropological accounts, interdisciplinary research collaboration with hydrologists, engineers and economists, as well as a more fulsome engagement with the variety of hopes, fears and dreams of fracking and unconventional gas, is recommended.WIREs Water2018, 5:e1272. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1272 This article is categorized under:Engineering Water > Sustainable Engineering of WaterScience of Water > Water QualityHuman Water > Methods 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, Ecology Letters)
    Abstract Social systems vary enormously across the animal kingdom, with important implications for ecological and evolutionary processes such as infectious disease dynamics, anti‐predator defence, and the evolution of cooperation. Comparing social network structures between species offers a promising route to help disentangle the ecological and evolutionary processes that shape this diversity. Comparative analyses of networks like these are challenging and have been used relatively little in ecology, but are becoming increasingly feasible as the number of empirical datasets expands. Here, we provide an overview of multispecies comparative social network studies in ecology and evolution. We identify a range of advancements that these studies have made and key challenges that they face, and we use these to guide methodological and empirical suggestions for future research. Overall, we hope to motivate wider publication and analysis of open social network datasets in animal ecology. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, ASEE Annual Conference Paper Repository)
    This theory paper focuses on a research methodology, using an autoethnographic approach to reflect on the use of cognitive interviewing (CI) as a method of increasing the quality and validity of questionnaires in pre-validation design and development stages. We first provide a brief review of cognitive interviewing, sometimes called “cognitive think-aloud interviewing” or “think-aloud interviewing,” before presenting a summary of two studies conducted by the authors that used CI. Differences between these two studies are discussed as comparative cases and advice is given to scholars considering the use of CI in their own research. While this paper is not an explicit guide to conducting CI, we do intend to provide advice and wisdom for researchers who are unfamiliar with CI as a method, grounded in our experience with the method. This paper is written with a particular focus on the use of CI in engineering education research (EER) but may be more broadly applicable to other social sciences domains. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, American Journal of Human Biology)
    Abstract ObjectivesWith our diverse training, theoretical and empirical toolkits, and rich data, evolutionary and biological anthropologists (EBAs) have much to contribute to research and policy decisions about climate change and other pressing social issues. However, we remain largely absent from these critical, ongoing efforts. Here, we draw on the literature and our own experiences to make recommendations for how EBAs can engage broader audiences, including the communities with whom we collaborate, a more diverse population of students, researchers in other disciplines and the development sector, policymakers, and the general public. These recommendations include: (1) playing to our strength in longitudinal, place‐based research, (2) collaborating more broadly, (3) engaging in greater public communication of science, (4) aligning our work with open‐science practices to the extent possible, and (5) increasing diversity of our field and teams through intentional action, outreach, training, and mentorship. ConclusionsWe EBAs need to put ourselves out there: research and engagement are complementary, not opposed to each other. With the resources and workable examples we provide here, we hope to spur more EBAs to action. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email