Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2022
Cultural evolution depends on both innovation (the creation of new cultural variants by accident or design) and high-fidelity transmission (which preserves our accumulated knowledge and allows the storage of normative conventions). What is required is an overarching theory encompassing both dimensions, specifying the psychological motivations and mechanisms involved. The bifocal stance theory (BST) of cultural evolution proposes that the co-existence of innovative change and stable tradition results from our ability to adopt different motivational stances flexibly during social learning and transmission. We argue that the ways in which instrumental and ritual stances are adopted in cultural transmission influence the nature and degree of copying fidelity and thus also patterns of cultural spread and stability at a population level over time. BST creates a unifying framework for interpreting the findings of otherwise seemingly disparate areas of enquiry, including social learning, cumulative culture, overimitation, and ritual performance. We discuss the implications of BST for competing by-product accounts which assume that faithful copying is merely a side-effect of instrumental learning and action parsing. We also set out a novel “cultural action framework” bringing to light aspects of social learning that have been relatively neglected by behavioural ecologists and evolutionary psychologists and establishing a roadmap for future research on this topic. The BST framework sheds new light on the cognitive underpinnings of cumulative cultural change, selection, and spread within an encompassing evolutionary framework.
Target article
Tradition and invention: The bifocal stance theory of cultural evolution
Related commentaries (25)
Action sequences, habits, and attention in copying strategies
Activation of stance by cues, or attunement to the invariants in a populated environment?
Bifocal stance theory, the transmission metaphor, and institutional reality
Bifocalism is in the eye of the beholder: Social learning as a developmental response to the accuracy of others' mentalizing
Can bifocal stance theory explain children's selectivity in active information transmission?
Conformity versus transmission in animal cultures
Confucius and the varifocal stance
Considering individual differences and variability is important in the development of the bifocal stance theory
Creativity and tradition: Music and bifocal stance theory
Cultural evolution is not independent of linguistic evolution and social aspects of language use
Culture is an optometrist: Cultural contexts adjust the prescription of social learning bifocals
Fidelity, stances, and explaining cultural stability
If you presume relevance, you don't need a bifocal lens
Implications of instrumental and ritual stances for traditionalism–threat responsivity relationships
Is there a need to distinguish instrumental copying behavior from traditions?
No tinkering allowed: When the end goal requires a highly specific or risky, and complex action sequence, expect ritualistic scaffolding
Non-instrumental actions can communicate roles and relationships, not just rituals
On the evolutionary origins of the bifocal stance
Psychological closeness and concrete construal may underlie high-fidelity social emulation
Representational exchange in social learning: Blurring the lines between the ritual and instrumental
Revisiting an extant framework: Concerns about culture and task generalization
The ritual stance does not apply to magic in general
Tradition–invention dichotomy and optimization in the field of science
What is the simplest model that can account for high-fidelity imitation?
When instrumental inference hides behind seemingly arbitrary conventions
Author response
Bifocal stance theory: An effort to broaden, extend, and clarify