Timothy Waring

Dr. Timothy Waring


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

22Years (2005-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
28 October 2014 in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PRPeter Richerson
Peter Richerson
RBRyan Baldini
Ryan Baldini
ABAdrian V. Bell
Adrian V. Bell
KDKathryn Demps
Kathryn Demps
KFKarl Frost
Karl Frost
MZMatthew Zefferman
Matthew Zefferman
Human cooperation is highly unusual. We live in large groups composed mostly of non-relatives. Evolutionists have proposed a number of explanations for this pattern, including cultural group selection and extensions of more general processes such as reciprocity, kin selection, and multi-level selection acting on genes. Evolutionary processes are consilient; they affect several different empirical domains, such as patterns of behavior and the proximal drivers of that behavior. In this target article, we sketch the evidence from five domains that bear on the explanatory adequacy of cultural group selection and competing hypotheses to explain human cooperation. Does cultural transmission constitute an inheritance system that can evolve in a Darwinian fashion? Are the norms that underpin institutions among the cultural traits so transmitted? Do we observe sufficient variation at the level of groups of considerable size for group selection to be a plausible process? Do human groups compete, and do success and failure in competition depend upon cultural variation? Do we observe adaptations for cooperation in humans that most plausibly arose by cultural group selection? If the answer to one of these questions is “no,” then we must look to other hypotheses. We present evidence, including quantitative evidence, that the answer to all of the questions is “yes” and argue that we must take the cultural group selection hypothesis seriously. If culturally transmitted systems of rules (institutions) that limit individual deviance organize cooperation in human societies, then it is not clear that any extant alternative to cultural group selection can be a complete explanation.

17 September 2008 in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RMRichard McElreath
Richard McElreath
ABAdrian V Bell
Adrian V Bell
CECharles Efferson
Charles Efferson
MLMark Lubell
Mark Lubell
PRPeter J Richerson
Peter J Richerson
TWTimothy Waring
Timothy Waring
The existence of social learning has been confirmed in diverse taxa, from apes to guppies. In order to advance our understanding of the consequences of social transmission and evolution of behaviour, however, we require statistical tools that can distinguish among diverse social learning strategies. In this paper, we advance two main ideas. First, social learning is diverse, in the sense that individuals can take advantage of different kinds of information and combine them in different ways. Examining learning strategies for different information conditions illuminates the more detailed design of social learning. We construct and analyse an evolutionary model of diverse social learning heuristics, in order to generate predictions and illustrate the impact of design differences on an organism's fitness. Second, in order to eventually escape the laboratory and apply social learning models to natural behaviour, we require statistical methods that do not depend upon tight experimental control. Therefore, we examine strategic social learning in an experimental setting in which the social information itself is endogenous to the experimental group, as it is in natural settings. We develop statistical models for distinguishing among different strategic uses of social information. The experimental data strongly suggest that most participants employ a hierarchical strategy that uses both average observed pay-offs of options as well as frequency information, the same model predicted by our evolutionary analysis to dominate a wide range of conditions.

1 November 2005 in Evolution and Human Behavior
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RMRichard McElreath
Richard McElreath
MLMark Lubell
Mark Lubell
PRPeter J. Richerson
Peter J. Richerson
TWTimothy Waring
Timothy Waring
WBWilliam Baum
William Baum
BPBrian Paciotti
Brian Paciotti

20 August 2009 in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RERebecca S Epanchin-Niell
Rebecca S Epanchin-Niell
MHMatthew B Hufford
Matthew B Hufford
CAClare E Aslan
Clare E Aslan
JSJason P Sexton
Jason P Sexton
JPJeffrey D Port
Jeffrey D Port
TWTimothy Waring
Timothy Waring
Control of biological invasions depends on the collective decisions of resource managers across invasion zones. Regions with high land‐use diversity, which we refer to as “management mosaics”, may be subject to severe invasions, for two main reasons. First, as land becomes increasingly subdivided, each manager assumes responsibility for a smaller portion of the total damages imposed by invasive species; the incentive to control invasives is therefore diminished. Secondly, managers opting not to control the invasion increase control costs for neighboring land managers by allowing their lands to act as an invader propagule source. Coordination among managers can help mitigate these effects, but greater numbers – and a wider variety – of land managers occupying a region hinder collective action. Here, we discuss the challenges posed by management mosaics, using a case study of the yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) invasion in the Sierra Nevada foothills of California. We suggest that the incorporation of management mosaic dynamics into invasive species research and management is essential for successful control of invasions, and provide recommendations to address this need.

1 January 2015 in Ecology and Society
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
TWTimothy Waring
Timothy Waring
MKMichelle Ann Kline
Michelle Ann Kline
JBJeremy Brooks
Jeremy Brooks
SGSandra Goff
Sandra Goff
JGJohn Gowdy
John Gowdy
JJJennifer Jacquet
Jennifer Jacquet
Waring, T. M., M. A. Kline, J. S. Brooks, S. H. Goff, J. Gowdy, M. A. Janssen, P. E. Smaldino, and J. Jacquet. 2015. A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis. Ecology and Society 20(2): 34.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07634-200234

14 December 2017 in Sustainability Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JBJeremy Brooks
Jeremy Brooks
TWTimothy Waring
Timothy Waring
MMMonique Borgerhoff Mulder
Monique Borgerhoff Mulder
PRPeter J. Richerson
Peter J. Richerson