This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Figure 1
Correlations between arrowhead dimensions in prehistoric Nevada (NV) and California (CA) as documented by Bettinger and Eerkens (1999). * indicates significantly higher correlation in NV compared to CA.
Figure 2
Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1999) hypothesised explanation for highly correlated arrowhead dimensions in prehistoric Nevada in terms of success-bias. The left hand side shows arrowhead designs in three groups, with the asterisked design exhibited by the most successful hunter. Success-biased cultural transmission causes other group members to copy that single successful hunter’s design, resulting on the right-hand side in uniformity within groups and correlations between dimensions across the entire region.
Figure 3
Bettinger and Eerkens’ (1999) hypothesised explanation for poorly correlated arrowhead dimensions in prehistoric California in terms of guided variation. The single arrowhead on the left hand side is independently modified by each hunter, resulting in the diverse designs on the right hand side, with low correlations between dimensions across the region.
Figure 4
The virtual arrowhead task that participants played in Mesoudi and O’Brien (2008a).Participants could directly modify arrowhead dimensions via the boxes at the top (Height, Width etc.) allowing guided variation, or copy another participant via the panel on the left, allowing success-biased cultural transmission.
Figure 5
Correlations between virtual arrowhead dimensions in the experiment of Mesoudi & O’Brien (2008a), following success bias and guided variation. *** indicates a significant correlation at p<0.001.
Figure 6
The structure of the biological sciences following the evolutionary synthesis (left-hand side) alongside an equivalent structure for an evolutionary cultural science (right-hand side). See Mesoudi et al. (2006) and Mesoudi (forthcoming) for details.
Figure 7
Multiple methods complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses
