Abstract

While most animals play, only humans play games. As animal play serves to teach offspring important life-skills in a safe scenario, human games might, in similar ways, teach important culturally relevant skills. Humans in all cultures play games; however, it is not clear whether variation in the characteristics of games across cultural groups is related to group-level attributes. Here we investigate specifically whether the cooperativeness of games covaries with socio-ecological differences across cultural groups. We hypothesize that cultural groups that engage in frequent inter-group conflict, cooperative sustenance acquisition, or that have less stratified social structures, might more frequently play cooperative games as compared to groups that do not share these characteristics. To test these hypotheses, we gathered data from the ethnographic record on 25 ethnolinguistic groups in the Austronesian language family. We show that cultural groups with higher levels of inter-group conflict and cooperative land-based hunting play cooperative games more frequently than other groups. Additionally, cultural groups with higher levels of intra-group conflict play competitive games more frequently than other groups. These findings indicate that games are not randomly distributed among cultures, but rather relate to the socio-ecological settings of the cultural groups that practice them. We argue that games serve as training grounds for group-specific norms and values and thereby have an important function in enculturation during childhood. Moreover, games might server an important role in the maintenance of cultural diversity.

Highlights

  • Games are a human invention, but their function might be similar to the function of play in the animal kingdom more generally

  • We use the following game filtering steps in R [69] provided by Leisterer-Peoples, et al [68]: i) games must have been linked to an Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database code [24], ii) games must be described in enough detail to assign a goal structure code, iii) games must not be of non-local origin, iv) games must occur within cultural groups in the Austronesian language phylogeny [21], v) games must occur in cultural groups with covariate data in Pulotu [23], and vi) the game descriptions must correspond to the same time frame as the covariate data from Pulotu, ±50 years

  • More detailed information about the distribution of goal structures across ethnolinguistic groups in our study is included in the S1 File

Read more

Summary

Methods

Our analysis draws on the goal structure codings provided by the AustroGames database [22, 68]. This open-access dataset provides detailed information on historical games played by cultural groups across the Austronesian language family. These data cover the ethnographic research period from the 18th to the 20th century. Additional information on the sample sizes after each filtering. Due to small sample sizes in several of the goal structure categories (e.g., purely cooperative games; see Table 1 for sample sizes and Fig 1 for details on the goal structures), we collapse the goal structures of games into three main groups: cooperative games (i.e., all games with cooperative interactions: cooperative group, cooperative group versus cooperative group, competitive versus cooperative group), competitive games (i.e., games without cooperative interactions, but with competitive interactions: competitive versus solitary, competitive), and solitary games (i.e., games with neither cooperative nor competitive interactions: solitary)

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call