Anthropology

Abstract

Anthropology is the comparative science of humankind: the study of human beings across all societies and all of time, from fossil ancestors to living cultures. Traditionally organized into four fields (cultural, archaeological, biological, and linguistic), it shares with psychology one central question: how much of the mind is universal and how much is made by culture. This article treats anthropology as a behavioral science and follows its cognitive branch, which asks how cultural knowledge is represented, learned, and transmitted, and how systems of thought vary across populations. It examines folk classification, holistic and analytic cognition, spatial language, and the cultural ratchet that accumulates complex traditions over generations, closing with the WEIRD critique: the warning that a psychology built on one narrow population cannot describe the species. Three interactive demonstrations let the reader manipulate these ideas.

Keywords: anthropology, culture and cognition, cognitive anthropology, cultural transmission, WEIRD samples

Anthropology is the discipline that takes the whole of humanity as its subject, seeking to describe and explain the full range of what human beings are and do, in every society and across the entire span of the species. Its scope is deliberately vast, encompassing the evolution of the human body, the material remains of past ways of life, the structure and diversity of languages, and the beliefs, practices, and institutions of living communities. What holds this range together is a comparative and holistic ambition: to understand any human phenomenon by setting it against the variety of human alternatives rather than treating one society, usually the observer's own, as the natural case. For cognitive psychology the discipline matters most through its long argument with the assumption of a single, universal human mind. By documenting how differently people classify the living world, attend to a scene, describe space, and reason about others, anthropology supplies the comparative evidence that decides whether a psychological finding reflects human nature or merely a local habit, an argument that culminated in the demonstration that the participants of standard psychology are a global outlier rather than a representative sample (Henrich et al., 2010).

What Anthropology Is

Anthropology is best understood as the science that refuses to take any one version of humanity as the default. Where other disciplines study a slice of human life in depth, anthropology insists on breadth: it asks what is true of human beings as such, and answers only after surveying the diversity of human forms, past and present. This comparative posture is paired with a holistic one, the conviction that a custom, a tool, or a word can be understood only in relation to the whole way of life in which it is embedded. The discipline took modern shape at the turn of the twentieth century, when Franz Boas broke with the then-dominant scheme that ranked societies on a single ladder from savagery to civilization and argued instead that each culture is a particular historical product to be studied in its own terms, using the direct evidence of fieldwork rather than the armchair reconstruction of universal stages (Boas, 1920). This principle, later called cultural relativism as a method, is not the claim that anything goes but the methodological demand that a practice first be understood in its own context before it is judged or compared. That demand gives anthropology its characteristic evidence base, the close observation of people living their lives, and its characteristic caution about grand claims built from a single case. For the study of mind, the payoff is a standing comparative check: any proposed universal of human cognition must survive contact with the ethnographic and cross-cultural record, and many proposals have not.

Types of Anthropology

Anthropology is also a formal descriptor in the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings, which files it beneath the Social Sciences at tree position F04.096.879.201. Beneath the descriptor MeSH hangs the set of narrower headings listed in Table 1. Two cautions apply. The list is an indexing classification built to organize the biomedical literature, not a theory that carves the discipline at its joints, and its members are neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive: medical anthropology draws on cultural and biological anthropology at once, and the classic four-field scheme described below cuts across these headings rather than matching them. Only subtypes that are themselves live articles on this site are linked, and at present none of these descriptors has its own page.

The Four-Field Tradition

In the tradition that Boas established in North America, anthropology is a single discipline made of four cooperating fields, each addressing a different facet of the human but all bound by the comparative method. Cultural anthropology, the largest, studies the customs, beliefs, and social arrangements of living peoples, and its signature method is ethnography, the sustained firsthand participation in a community that lets the observer describe a way of life from the inside. Archaeology recovers the same human variety across deep time, reconstructing past societies from the material traces they leave. Biological anthropology treats humans as evolved organisms, studying the fossil record, human genetic and morphological variation, and the behavior of nonhuman primates. Linguistic anthropology studies language as a cultural and cognitive system, examining how the thousands of human languages structure meaning and social life. The four-field ideal has always been contested, and many departments now house the fields somewhat separately, but its underlying claim remains central to the discipline: that the biological, material, linguistic, and cultural dimensions of humanity are aspects of one phenomenon and are distorted when studied wholly apart. For cognitive science the linguistic and cultural fields are the natural interlocutors, but the biological field supplies the essential reminder that the human capacity for culture is itself an evolved trait with a comparative baseline in other species (Whiten et al., 1999).

Cognitive Anthropology

Cognitive anthropology is the branch that asks what people have to know to function as members of their society, and how that knowledge is organized in the mind. It grew in the mid-twentieth century out of the study of how languages divide up domains such as kinship, color, and the natural world, and it matured into a general program for describing culture as shared cognition, treating a culture less as a catalogue of customs than as a body of learned mental models that members use to interpret and act, a program whose history and cognitive commitments are surveyed in Atran et al., 2005. Its most developed empirical domain is folk biology, the universal human tendency to sort living things into a taxonomy of nested ranks with a privileged basic level, the level of oak and trout rather than of plant or of white oak. Across widely separated societies people build these taxonomies in strikingly similar ways, and the shared structure supports systematic inductive inference, so that learning a fact about one species is projected to others according to taxonomic distance (Medin & Atran, 2004). Yet the content and the reasoning built on that structure vary with experience: expert foragers and urban undergraduates given the same categorization and reasoning tasks produce systematically different inductions, revealing that even a candidate universal is inflected by cultural and ecological knowledge (Atran et al., 2005). The broader theoretical claim, associated with the naturalistic turn in the study of culture, is that culture is not a thing imposed on individual minds from outside but a distribution of mental representations that spread, more or less faithfully, from person to person, so that explaining a culture means explaining why some representations are catchy and stable while others die out (Sperber & Hirschfeld, 2004). On this view cognitive anthropology and cognitive psychology are continuous, and the field has argued explicitly for anthropology's place within the cognitive sciences as the discipline that supplies their missing comparative and ecological dimension (Bender et al., 2010).

Culture and Systems of Thought

If cultures are distributions of mental representations, then the psychological processes that acquire and deploy those representations might themselves be shaped by culture, and a large body of comparative work suggests they are. The most influential demonstration concerns the very allocation of attention. Comparing East Asian and Western participants across many tasks, researchers described two broad cognitive styles: a holistic orientation that attends to the whole field and the relationships among objects, favoring explanation by context and by the balancing of forces, and an analytic orientation that isolates a focal object, assigns it to a category, and explains its behavior by its internal properties and by formal rules (Nisbett et al., 2001). The differences are not merely stylistic preferences reported after the fact; they show up in low-level measures such as where the eyes move first and longest in a scene, in what changes people notice, and in susceptibility to certain visual illusions. The account on offer is not that some populations reason better than others but that habitual social practices, more relational and interdependent in some societies, more individuated in others, tune perception and reasoning toward the field or toward the object. This reframes a great deal of classic cognitive psychology, much of it conducted on analytic Western samples, as the description of one style rather than of the mind as such. The demonstration below lets the reader shift a viewer between a holistic and an analytic orientation and watch how attention is divided between a focal object and its surrounding field, and how that division changes what is likely to be noticed.

Language and Space

Nowhere is the interaction of culture, language, and cognition sharper than in the description of space. English and many familiar languages lean on an egocentric, relative frame of reference, locating things as to the left or right, in front of or behind the speaker's own body. Other languages instead use an absolute, geocentric frame as their everyday default, locating everything by fixed bearings such as north and south even at the scale of a tabletop, so that a speaker refers to the fork on the west side of the plate. Speakers of such languages maintain a constant, accurate sense of the cardinal directions that speakers of relative languages find remarkable, and when tested on nonverbal memory and reasoning tasks they reconstruct spatial arrays in absolute rather than relative terms, indicating that the linguistic frame is bound up with a corresponding habit of nonlinguistic cognition (Majid et al., 2004). The case matters because space had seemed the least likely candidate for cultural variation, a domain fixed by the shared architecture of the human body and visual system; finding systematic diversity there sharpened the long-running question of whether and how the language a person speaks can restructure thought. The lesson cognitive anthropology draws is neither that language determines thought nor that it is irrelevant, but that a linguistic community's habitual coding of a domain can recruit and stabilize one of several available cognitive strategies. The demonstration below lets the reader encode the same spatial layout under a relative and an absolute frame, then rotate the observer to see why the two frames diverge in exactly the situations that reveal which one a mind is using. The general point connects to the psychology of space perception and to how spatial categories are formed.

Cultural Learning and the Ratchet

The deepest anthropological contribution to the science of mind may be its account of why humans have culture at all in the cumulative sense that no other animal does. Many species learn socially, and field studies have documented that chimpanzee communities maintain distinct behavioral traditions, transmitted by learning rather than genes, that differ from group to group in the manner of human customs (Whiten et al., 1999). But human culture is unique in ratcheting: innovations accumulate across generations into artifacts and practices far too complex for any individual to invent alone, and they are rarely lost. The engine of this ratchet is a distinctive human capacity for high-fidelity social learning built on shared intentionality, the ability to understand others as intentional agents with goals like one's own, which supports faithful imitation, teaching, and the joint attention through which knowledge is deliberately handed on (Tomasello et al., 2005). Because learning from others is so much cheaper than individual trial and error, a heavy reliance on social learning is itself adaptive, and formal models show that natural selection favors it precisely because it lets a population accumulate adaptive information no single lifetime could acquire (Boyd et al., 2011). The developmental and comparative evidence has been synthesized into an account of cumulative cultural learning as a suite of early-emerging, universal yet culturally variable capacities, including imitation, teaching, and conformity, that together drive the ratchet (Legare, 2017). How children actually take up this inheritance also varies across societies: in many communities acquisition proceeds less through the decontextualized instruction familiar from Western schooling than through intent participation, in which learners observe and pitch in to the ongoing activities of their community and are drawn by degrees into competent practice, a mode of learning anthropology has documented as widespread and highly effective (Rogoff et al., 2003). A striking corollary is demographic: because complex skills are transmitted imperfectly, a population must be large and well connected enough for enough learners to match or exceed the most skilled models, or the accumulated complexity erodes. The demonstration below makes this ratchet explicit, letting the reader set the fidelity of transmission and the rate of innovation and watch a tradition's complexity climb toward a ceiling or decay toward simplicity.

The WEIRD Critique

Anthropology's comparative record has always implied a warning for psychology, and in the last two decades that warning became a formal indictment. An early sign came from behavioral economics: when the same bargaining and public-goods games were run across fifteen small-scale societies, the offers and rejections varied far more than the universal self-interested-agent model allows, tracking instead each group's everyday patterns of cooperation and exchange (Henrich et al., 2001). Reviewing the empirical base of the behavioral sciences, researchers found that the overwhelming majority of published studies, and of the participants in them, come from societies that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, and that on a wide range of measures, from visual perception and spatial reasoning to fairness, cooperation, and moral judgment, these WEIRD populations sit at the extreme end of the human distribution rather than at its center (Henrich et al., 2010). The problem is therefore not only that the samples are narrow but that they are unrepresentative in a biased direction, so that a science built on them systematically mistakes the psychology of one unusual population for the psychology of the species. Later work put numbers on the gap and tools in reach of correcting it: a formal measure of cultural distance lets researchers quantify how far any two populations sit from one another and shows how steeply findings can vary across that space (Muthukrishna et al., 2020), while a decade-long review found the field still overwhelmingly WEIRD despite the alarm, and argued for treating the whole of human variation as a global laboratory rather than a nuisance (Apicella et al., 2020). The reform program that follows is methodological: sample more representatively, report the population a claim is based on, and treat generalization to the species as a hypothesis to be tested rather than an entitlement (Rad et al., 2018). The critique returns anthropology to the center of the cognitive sciences, because it is precisely the comparative, cross-cultural evidence anthropology has always gathered that is needed to say which findings are human universals and which are local (Barrett, 2020).

Worked Example

The claim that cultural complexity depends on the fidelity of transmission can be made exact with a simple accumulation model, the logic behind the cultural ratchet and its demographic corollary. Represent a tradition's complexity as the number of distinct technique-components a population reliably preserves, and track it generation by generation. Suppose each learner retains any given component from the previous generation with fidelity f, and that the population also innovates, adding on average a new components per generation. Then complexity follows the recurrence S(next) = f times S(current) plus a. Start a tradition at S = 20 components with a high fidelity of f = 0.9 and an innovation rate of a = 2. The next generation preserves 0.9 times 20, or 18, and adds 2, for 20 again: the tradition sits at a stable ceiling. Now drop the fidelity to f = 0.6, the kind of loss that follows when the most skilled models are too few to learn from accurately. The first generation now retains 0.6 times 20, or 12, and adds 2 for 14; the next retains 0.6 times 14, or 8.4, and adds 2 for 10.4; and the tradition slides on toward its new equilibrium. That equilibrium is found by setting S(next) equal to S(current), which gives S equals a divided by (1 minus f). With a = 2 and f = 0.9 the ceiling is 2 divided by 0.1, or 20 components; with f = 0.6 it is 2 divided by 0.4, or just 5. A drop in transmission fidelity from 0.9 to 0.6, well within the range a shrinking or fragmenting population can impose, collapses the sustainable complexity of the tradition fourfold, from twenty components to five. This is the formal heart of the anthropological argument that complex culture is a property of populations and their connectivity, not of individual intelligence, and it is why isolation and demographic collapse can drive the loss of skills a society once possessed (Boyd et al., 2011).

Discussion

Anthropology occupies a peculiar and valuable position with respect to the science of mind. It is the discipline that has most consistently insisted that human beings are cultural animals, that much of what any person knows and even how any person perceives is inherited socially rather than reinvented, and that the range of human variation is both wider and more patterned than a psychology drawn from one society could guess. Its cognitive branch has turned that insistence into testable claims, showing that folk taxonomies share a deep structure while their inductions vary with expertise, that attention and reasoning divide into holistic and analytic styles, that languages recruit different frames for space, and that the human capacity for cumulative culture rests on high-fidelity social learning and on population structure. These are not curiosities at the margin of cognitive psychology; they bear directly on what the field can claim. The WEIRD critique is the sharpest expression of the point, and it cuts both ways: it is a caution against overgeneralization, but also an invitation, because the same comparative evidence that exposes false universals is what will eventually establish the real ones. The open questions are correspondingly large. Which features of cognition are genuinely pan-human, and which are the local settings of a more plastic system? How do the twin inheritances, genetic and cultural, interact over development and over evolutionary time to produce a mind (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021)? And how can a field correct a sampling bias it has known about for a generation without simply exporting WEIRD instruments to non-WEIRD people? What anthropology contributes to these questions is not a rival theory of mind but a discipline of comparison, and the standing reminder that the human is known only by studying humans in the plural.

Current Directions

The most active front is the effort to move from diagnosing the WEIRD problem to remedying it. Rather than treating cultural variation as noise to be controlled away, a growing program treats it as the central signal and seeks its causes, as in the finding that centuries of a particular kinship regime, reshaped in Europe by the medieval Church's marriage prohibitions, predict measurable present-day differences in individualism, conformity, and impersonal trust across societies and even across regions within them (Schulz et al., 2019). This work fuses anthropology, history, and psychology, and exemplifies the argument that understanding the human mind now urgently requires cross-cultural rather than convenience sampling (Barrett, 2020). A second direction turns the comparative lens on the tools of the cognitive sciences themselves, documenting how heavily the field relies on a handful of large languages, English above all, and arguing that this linguistic narrowness quietly distorts theories of language and cognition much as WEIRD sampling distorts theories of behavior (Blasi et al., 2022). A third integrates the anthropological account of cultural evolution with the psychology of cooperation and institutions, asking how the norms, and the psychology that internalizes them, that allow large-scale human cooperation were themselves assembled by cultural rather than purely genetic evolution (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021). Across these fronts the discipline is less a bystander to cognitive science than a supplier of its comparative backbone, and increasingly of the historical and demographic causes behind the variation that cognition displays. The line of argument connects naturally to accounts of bounded rationality and to the cross-cultural study of decision making.

Common Misconceptions

Anthropology is the study of bones, ruins, and vanished tribes.

Those belong to particular subfields, but the discipline as a whole studies all human beings in all times and places, very much including modern industrial societies. Its cognitive and linguistic branches sit squarely alongside psychology, and its central concern is living human variation, not only the ancient or the exotic (Bender et al., 2010).

Cultural relativism means that no belief can be judged and every practice is equally valid.

As Boas intended it, relativism is a method, not a moral verdict: the demand that a practice first be understood in its own cultural context before it is explained or compared. It is an antidote to ranking societies on a single scale of progress, and it is compatible with evaluating practices once they are understood (Boas, 1920).

If cognition varies across cultures, then the human mind has no universal features.

Variation and universality coexist. Folk taxonomies share a deep organizing structure everywhere even as their content and the inferences drawn from them vary with expertise, and the very capacity for cumulative culture is a species universal (Medin & Atran, 2004). The comparative method is how genuine universals are separated from local settings, not evidence that none exist.

Glossary

Analytic cognition.

A cognitive style that isolates a focal object, assigns it to a category, and explains its behavior by internal properties and formal rules.

Archaeology.

The anthropological subfield that reconstructs past human societies from the material remains they left behind.

Biological anthropology.

The study of humans as evolved organisms, spanning the fossil record, human variation, and nonhuman primates; also called physical anthropology.

Cognitive anthropology.

The branch of anthropology that studies how cultural knowledge is mentally represented, organized, and used by members of a society.

Cultural anthropology.

The study of living human societies, their customs, beliefs, and social organization, chiefly through ethnographic fieldwork.

Cultural relativism.

The methodological principle that a practice should first be understood in its own cultural context rather than judged against the observer's society.

Cumulative culture.

Culture in which innovations accumulate across generations into artifacts and practices too complex for any individual to invent alone.

Ethnography.

The core method of cultural anthropology: sustained firsthand participation in a community in order to describe its way of life from within.

Folk biology.

The universal human system for classifying living things into nested taxonomic ranks and drawing inductive inferences across them.

Frame of reference.

The coordinate system a language or mind uses to locate objects in space, whether relative to the body (egocentric) or to fixed bearings (geocentric).

Holistic cognition.

A cognitive style that attends to the whole perceptual field and the relationships among objects, favoring explanation by context and interacting forces.

Linguistic anthropology.

The subfield studying language as a cultural and cognitive system, including how the world's languages structure meaning and social life.

Shared intentionality.

The human capacity to understand others as intentional agents and to form joint goals, underpinning high-fidelity imitation, teaching, and cultural transmission.

Social learning.

The acquisition of behavior or knowledge from other individuals rather than through individual trial and error, the substrate of the cultural ratchet.

Transmission fidelity.

The accuracy with which cultural information is copied from one generation to the next; high fidelity is what allows complexity to accumulate.

WEIRD samples.

Participants from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic societies, who dominate behavioral research yet are a global outlier on many measures.

Key Researchers

Scott Atran. Anthropologist and cognitive scientist affiliated with the CNRS and the University of Michigan; his work on folk biology and the cultural mind showed how a universal system of biological classification is inflected by ecological and cultural expertise. Faculty Page - ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Franz Boas (1858-1942). The founder of modern American anthropology at Columbia University; he replaced the unilineal ranking of societies with cultural relativism, the four-field discipline, and an insistence on fieldwork. Faculty Page - Wikipedia

Roy D'Andrade (1931-2016). A founder of cognitive anthropology at the University of California, San Diego; he developed the study of culture as shared, learned mental models and schemas. Faculty Page - Wikipedia

Clifford Geertz (1926-2006). Interpretive anthropologist at the Institute for Advanced Study; his conception of culture as webs of meaning and his method of thick description shaped how ethnography reads the significance of practices. Faculty Page - Wikipedia

Joseph Henrich. Evolutionary anthropologist at Harvard University; he documented the WEIRD-sample problem and built the account of cumulative cultural evolution as the driver of human adaptation. Faculty Page - ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009). French founder of structural anthropology at the College de France; he argued that the diversity of myth and kinship rests on universal structures of the human mind. Faculty Page - Wikipedia

Stephen C. Levinson. Linguist and cognitive scientist, emeritus director at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics; his cross-linguistic work on spatial frames of reference showed that habitual language can reorganize nonlinguistic cognition. Faculty Page - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Ara Norenzayan. Cultural psychologist at the University of British Columbia; a co-author of the WEIRD critique and of the analysis of holistic and analytic systems of thought across cultures. Faculty Page - Google Scholar

Barbara Rogoff. Developmental and cultural psychologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz; her work on guided participation reframed cognitive development as apprenticeship in the practices of a community. Faculty Page - ORCID - Wikipedia

Dan Sperber. Cognitive and social scientist at the Central European University and the Institut Jean Nicod; his naturalistic, epidemiological account recast culture as the population-level distribution of mental representations. Faculty Page - ORCID - Google Scholar - Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is anthropology?
Anthropology is the comparative science of humankind, the study of human beings in all societies and across all of time. It examines humans as biological organisms, as makers of material culture past and present, as speakers of language, and as members of societies with distinctive customs and beliefs, seeking to understand both what is universal in human life and how it varies (Boas, 1920).

What are the four fields of anthropology?
In the tradition established by Franz Boas, anthropology comprises cultural anthropology, which studies living societies through ethnography; archaeology, which studies past societies through their material remains; biological or physical anthropology, which studies humans as evolved organisms; and linguistic anthropology, which studies language as a cultural and cognitive system. The four are meant to be complementary facets of one discipline.

How is anthropology related to psychology?
The two disciplines share the study of the human mind and behavior but approach it differently: psychology often seeks general laws, frequently from a single society, while anthropology insists on comparison across the full range of human cultures. Cognitive anthropology in particular studies how cultural knowledge is mentally represented, and it supplies the cross-cultural evidence needed to tell human universals from local patterns (Bender et al., 2010).

What is cognitive anthropology?
Cognitive anthropology is the branch that studies what people must know to function in their society and how that knowledge is organized in the mind. It began with the analysis of how languages classify domains such as kinship and the natural world and developed into a general account of culture as shared, learned mental models (Atran et al., 2005).

Does the language a person speaks shape how they think?
In some domains it appears to. Speakers of languages that use absolute directions such as north and south to describe everyday space maintain a constant sense of orientation and reconstruct spatial arrays in absolute terms on nonverbal tasks, indicating that a habitual linguistic frame is bound up with a corresponding nonlinguistic cognitive habit (Majid et al., 2004). The effect is one of recruiting a strategy, not of language rigidly determining thought.

Why is human culture unique among animals?
Other animals, including chimpanzees, maintain socially learned traditions, but only humans accumulate innovations across generations into practices too complex for any individual to invent alone (Whiten et al., 1999). This cumulative ratchet rests on high-fidelity social learning and shared intentionality, which support faithful imitation and teaching (Tomasello et al., 2005).

What does WEIRD mean in psychology?
WEIRD stands for Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, the kind of population from which the great majority of behavioral research draws its participants. The concern is that these populations are unrepresentative outliers on many psychological measures, so findings based on them may not generalize to humanity as a whole (Henrich et al., 2010).

Is cultural relativism the same as saying anything goes?
No. As a methodological principle, cultural relativism asks that a practice first be understood in its own context rather than judged against the observer's society; it is an antidote to ranking cultures on a single scale of progress. It concerns how to explain and compare practices, and does not by itself entail that no practice can ever be evaluated (Boas, 1920).

References

Apicella, C., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2020). Beyond WEIRD: A review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.015

Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112(4), 744-776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.744

Barrett, H. C. (2020). Towards a cognitive science of the human: Cross-cultural approaches and their urgency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(8), 620-638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.007

Bender, A., Hutchins, E., & Medin, D. (2010). Anthropology in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 374-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01082.x

Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., & Majid, A. (2022). Over-reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(12), 1153-1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.09.015

Boas, F. (1920). The methods of ethnology. American Anthropologist, 22(4), 311-321. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1920.22.4.02a00020

Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J., & Henrich, J. (2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(Supplement 2), 10918-10925. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100290108

Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91(2), 73-78. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.2.73

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 207-240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-081920-042106

Legare, C. H. (2017). Cumulative cultural learning: Development and diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7877-7883. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620743114

Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003

Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111(4), 960-983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.960

Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678-701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401-11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115

Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía-Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 175-203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145118

Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P., & Henrich, J. (2019). The Church, intensive kinship, and global psychological variation. Science, 366(6466), eaau5141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5141

Sperber, D., & Hirschfeld, L. A. (2004). The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.002

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129

Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. C., Nishida, T., Reynolds, V., Sugiyama, Y., Tutin, C. E. G., Wrangham, R. W., & Boesch, C. (1999). Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature, 399(6737), 682-685. https://doi.org/10.1038/21415