Content biases in three phases of cultural transmission: A review

Abstract

Cultural evolution theory proposes that information transmitted through social learning is not transmitted indiscriminately but is instead biased by heuristics and mechanisms which increase the likelihood that individuals will copy particular cultural traits based on their inherent properties (content biases) and copy the cultural traits of particular models, or under particular circumstances (context biases). Recent research suggests that content biases are as important, or more important, than context biases in the selection and faithful transmission of cultural traits. Here, evidence for biases for emotive, social, threat-related, stereotype consistent and counterintuitive content is reviewed, focusing on how these biases may operate across three phases of transmission: choose-to-receive, encode-and-retrieve, and choose-to-transmit. Support for some biases primarily functioning as biases of attention and memory, while others primarily function as biases of selection to share with others, and the implications for this in wider cultural evolution is discussed. Ultimately, a more consistent approach to examining content biases, and greater engagement with wider literature, is required for clear conclusions about their mechanism and potential differences across the three phases of transmission.

Biogeographical ‍distributions of trickster animals

“…schema) that they already know [ 62 , 63 ]. Previous experiments have shown that cognitive biases shape folklore in certain directions [ 62 – 64 ]. Such cognitive or behavioural processes may shape folklore incorporating trickster animals whose corresponding real animals were familiar to locals.…”

Curious about threats: Morbid curiosity and interest in conspiracy theories in US adults

“…Work in cultural evolution has suggested a content bias for general threat‐related information in social transmission. This bias increases the likelihood that information about threats will be attended to, believed, encoded in memory, and passed on to others, increasing their prevalence in culture (Stubbersfield, 2022). This has been demonstrated experimentally using micro‐society designs (Blaine & Boyer, 2018; Moussaïd et al, 2015; Stubbersfield et al, 2015), and has been found to be relevant to the propagation of rumours (Knapp, 1944), front page news (Davis & McLeod, 2003), ‘fake news’ (Acerbi, 2019), urban legends (Fessler et al, 2014; Stubbersfield et al, 2017), and international supernatural beliefs (Fessler et al, 2014).…”

A conceptual analysis of public opinion regarding genome research in Japan

“…Regarding the content of transmission, Ishiyama et al (2012) demonstrated that people, in general, can show a more positive attitude toward the medical setting than the nonmedical setting. One of the main reasons for this attitude can be explained by a possible threat bias ( Mesoudi and Whiten, 2008 ; Stubbersfield, 2022 )—that is, people may consider diseases the greatest threat to their lives. Our analysis indicates that while people are aware of basic genetic terms, social benefits, and concerns, they may not be familiar with some of the specific technical terms and rules of GR.…”

“…However, knowledge and information are not passed linearly, since individuals make selective use of information—a situation called content bias ( Boyd and Richerson, 1985 ; Mesoudi and Whiten, 2008 ). Several content biases are classified in cultural transmission as being related to the kind of information that is copied more easily–namely, i) payoff bias (i.e., a trait with a higher payoff being copied), ii) emotion bias (i.e., a trait provoking disgust being more likely to be copied than other traits), iii) threat bias (i.e., words related to potential threats and survival potentially being recalled better than other words), and iv) social bias (i.e., putting greater emphasis on a trait’s moral aspects than on its efficacy) ( Mesoudi and Whiten, 2008 ; Stubbersfield, 2022 ). An example of biased transmission may be individuals exhibiting a more positive reaction toward GR in medical contexts than in other contexts.…”