Alternative statistical approaches to the use of data as evidence for hypotheses in human behavioral ecology

In their ambitious Evolutionary Anthropology paper, Winterhalder and Smith 1 review the history, theory, and methods of human behavioral ecology (HBE). In establishing how HBE differs from traditional approaches within sociocultural anthropology, they and others laud its hypothetical‐deductive research method. 1–3 Our aim is to critically examine how human behavioral ecologists conduct their research, specifically how they analyze and interpret data as evidence for scientific hypotheses. Through computer simulations and a review of empirical studies of human sex ratios, we consider some limitations of the status quo and present alternatives that could strengthen the field. In particular, we suggest that because human behavioral ecologists often consider multiple hypotheses, they should use statistical approaches that can quantify the evidence in empirical data for competing hypotheses. Although we focus on HBE, the principles of this paper apply broadly within biological anthropology.

[1]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  The Evolution of Parental Care , 2019 .

[2]  C. Nunn,et al.  Cultural macroevolution and the transmission of traits , 2006 .

[3]  K. Strier,et al.  Advances in field‐based studies of primate behavioral endocrinology , 2005, American journal of primatology.

[4]  S. Raghu,et al.  The Nature of Scientific Evidence: Statistical, Philosophical and Empirical Considerations , 2005 .

[5]  M. Handcock,et al.  Likelihood-based inference for stochastic models of sexual network formation. , 2004, Theoretical population biology.

[6]  Barney Luttbeg,et al.  Comparing Alternative Models to Empirical Data: Cognitive Models of Western Scrub‐Jay Foraging Behavior , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[7]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[8]  I. J. Myung,et al.  When a good fit can be bad , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[9]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Avoiding pitfalls when using information-theoretic methods , 2002 .

[10]  Rebecca Gowland,et al.  A Bayesian approach to ageing perinatal skeletal material from archaeological sites : implications for the evidence for infanticide in Roman-Britain. , 2002 .

[11]  C. Guglielmino,et al.  Semes and Genes in Africa1 , 2002, Current Anthropology.

[12]  Chris Chatfield,et al.  Confessions of a pragmatic statistician , 2002 .

[13]  R. Hames,et al.  PARENTAL INVESTMENT AND CHILD HEALTH IN A YANOMAMÖ VILLAGE SUFFERING SHORT-TERM FOOD STRESS , 2001, Journal of Biosocial Science.

[14]  R. Nesse,et al.  The Trivers–Willard hypothesis of parental investment: No effect in the contemporary United States , 2001 .

[15]  Gregory M. Mikkelson Complexity and Verisimilitude: Realism for Ecology , 2001 .

[16]  S. Kozieł,et al.  Waiting for Trivers and Willard: do the rich really favor sons? , 2001, American journal of physical anthropology.

[17]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative , 2000 .

[18]  T. Ketelaar,et al.  Are Evolutionary Explanations Unfalsifiable? Evolutionary Psychology and the Lakatosian Philosophy of Science , 2000 .

[19]  S. Byers Testing type II error rates in biological anthropology. , 2000, American journal of physical anthropology.

[20]  J. Freese,et al.  Sociobiology, Status, and Parental Investment in Sons and Daughters: Testing the Trivers‐Willard Hypothesis1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  C. J. Duncan,et al.  Reproductive strategies and sex-biased investment , 1999, Human nature.

[22]  M. Mulder,et al.  Brothers and sisters , 1998, Human nature.

[23]  V. Tuffrey,et al.  PARENTAL INVESTMENT THEORY AND BIRTH SEX RATIOS IN NEPAL , 1997, Journal of Biosocial Science.

[24]  R. Royall Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm , 1997 .

[25]  R. Hilborn,et al.  The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data , 1997 .

[26]  C. Engel,et al.  Population Increase and Sex-Biased Parental Investment in Humans: Evidence from 18th-and 19th-Century Germany , 1997, Current Anthropology.

[27]  Robin I. M. Dunbar,et al.  Female-biased reproductive strategies in a Hungarian Gypsy population , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[28]  Sandra Scarr,et al.  Rules of Evidence: A Larger Context for the Statistical Debate , 1997 .

[29]  B. Hewlett,et al.  Cultural variation in Africa: role of mechanisms of transmission and adaptation. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[30]  F. Famoye Seeing Through Statistics , 1995 .

[31]  Jacob Cohen The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[32]  Nigel G. Yoccoz,et al.  Use, Overuse, and Misuse of Significance Tests in Evolutionary Biology and Ecology , 1991, The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America.

[33]  P. Lachenbruch Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[34]  M. Oakes Statistical Inference: A Commentary for the Social and Behavioural Sciences , 1986 .

[35]  N. Jones Towards hypothetico‐deductive anthropology? , 1986 .

[36]  E. L. Battiste,et al.  Computer Science And Statistics , 1978, ACM Annual Conference.

[37]  Dan E. Willard,et al.  Natural Selection of Parental Ability to Vary the Sex Ratio of Offspring , 1973, Science.

[38]  M. Ghiselin The triumph of the Darwinian method , 1970 .

[39]  J. Platt Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. , 1964, Science.

[40]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1959 .

[41]  D. Cox Some problems connected with statistical inference , 1958 .

[42]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[43]  J. Platt Strong Inference , 2007 .

[44]  Subhash R. Lele,et al.  Elicit Data, Not Prior: On Using Expert Opinion in Ecological Studies , 2004 .

[45]  M. Pigliucci Are ecology and evolutionary biology "soft" sciences? , 2002 .

[46]  E. Smith,et al.  Analyzing adaptive strategies: Human behavioral ecology at twenty‐five , 2000 .

[47]  S. Hrdy,et al.  Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species , 1999 .

[48]  W. Jungers,et al.  Stature estimation and calibration: Bayesian and maximum likelihood perspectives in physical anthropology. , 1998, American journal of physical anthropology.

[49]  K. Jaffe,et al.  Sex ratio at birth deviations in modern Venezuela: the Trivers-Willard effect. , 1996, Social biology.

[50]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning , 1993 .

[51]  Gideon Keren,et al.  A Handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences : methodological issues , 1993 .

[52]  C. Geyer Markov Chain Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood , 1991 .

[53]  L. Cronk Human Behavioral Ecology , 1991 .

[54]  G. G. Vining Data Analysis: A Model-Comparison Approach , 1989 .

[55]  G. Vining,et al.  Data Analysis: A Model-Comparison Approach , 1989 .

[56]  Larry Laudan,et al.  Science and Hypothesis , 1981 .