Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
Experimental evidence for convergent evolution of maternal
care heuristics in industrialized and small-scale populations
Geoff Kushnick , Ben Hanowell, Jun-Hong Kim, Banrida Langstieh, Vittorio Magnano and
Katalin Oláh
Article citation details
R. Soc. open sci. 2: 140518.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140518
Review timeline
Original submission:
Revised submission:
Final acceptance:
12 December 2014
8 May 2015
26 May 2015
Note: Reports are unedited and appear as
submitted by the referee. The review history
appears in chronological order.
Note: This manuscript has been transferred from another Royal Society journal without peer review.
Review History
RSOS-140518.R0 (Original submission)
Review form: Reviewer 1 (Gerd Gigerenzer)
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
N.A.
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
© 2015 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use,
provided the original author and source are credited
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
2
Recommendation?
Accept with minor revision (please list in comments)
Comments to the Author(s)
Using vignettes, the authors demonstrate differences in judgments of how likely a hypothetical
women was to provide care to her child between populations. The vignettes varied characteristics
of the child, the mother, and the environment. The effect sizes found were in the order of a
quarter to three quarters of a point on a 5-point scale. The authors conclude that these differences
in judgments demonstrate the use of different maternal caretaking heuristics between the
industrialized and small-scale populations.
The strength of the manuscript is its comparative study of such widely varying populations and
its link to maternal heuristics. I agree that the conceptual framework of heuristics is a promising
advance over traditional approaches in terms of preferences and attitudes. Yet the manuscript
could make a stronger point if some of the maternal caretaking heuristics were identified. For
instance, different populations might consider different variables (varied in the vignettes), or just
one or two, or order them differently. To model these differences, fast-and-frugal trees would be
a possibility, as described in the Annual Review article by Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier cited in the
manuscript under review. Fast-and-frugal trees would make it possible to model yes-no maternal
care decisions, and the kind of variables and their order would model the differences between
populations. Another publication that might be helpful for modeling maternal care decisions is
Davis & Todd, Paternal investment by simple decision rules (in Gigerenzer et al., 1999, Simple
heuristics that make us smart. OUP). Although this article deals with parental investment in
birds, some of the constraints, such as scarceness of resources, apply to the situations described in
the vignettes. It should be possible to test such models of maternal caretaking heuristics against
the vignette data. If not, then candidate heuristics that might explain the differences should at
least be proposed as hypotheses for further studies.
Finally, a small point. A difference between the mean ratings in the population does not mean
that “mothers in the industrialized sample were sensitive to the scenario’s severity for herself and
her child …; mothers in the small-scale sample were insensitive to severity and child’s age.” (line
167-9). A difference of a fraction of a point means that “mothers in the industrialized sample were
more sensitive” (or less sensitive). The authors’ formulation suggests that all or none of the
mothers were sensitive.
Decision letter (RSOS-140518)
07-Apr-2015
Dear Dr Kushnick,
The Subject Editor assigned to your paper ("Experimental Evidence for Convergent Evolution of
Maternal Care Heuristics in Industrialized and Small-Scale Populations") has now received
comments from reviewers. We would like you to revise your paper in accordance with the
referee and Subject Editor suggestions which can be found below (not including confidential
reports to the Editor). Please note this decision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.
Please submit a copy of your revised paper within three weeks (i.e. by the 30-Apr-2015). If we do
not hear from you within this time then it will be assumed that the paper has been withdrawn. In
exceptional circumstances, extensions may be possible if agreed with the Editorial Office in
advance.We do not allow multiple rounds of revision so we urge you to make every effort to
fully address all of the comments at this stage. If deemed necessary by the Editors, your
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
3
manuscript will be sent back to one or more of the original reviewers for assessment. If the
original reviewers are not available we may invite new reviewers.
To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and enter your
Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with
Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been
appended to denote a revision. Revise your manuscript and upload a new version through your
Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you must respond to the comments made by the
referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 - File Upload". Please use this to
document how you have responded to the comments, and the adjustments you have made. In
order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in
your response.
In addition to addressing all of the reviewers' and editor's comments please also ensure that your
revised manuscript contains the following sections before the reference list:
• Ethics statement
If your study uses humans or animals please include details of the ethical approval received,
including the name of the committee that granted approval. For human studies please also detail
whether informed consent was obtained. For field studies on animals please include details of all
permissions, licences and/or approvals granted to carry out the fieldwork.
• Data accessibility
It is a condition of publication that all supporting data are made available either as
supplementary information or preferably in a suitable permanent repository. The data
accessibility section should state where the article's supporting data can be accessed. This section
should also include details, where possible of where to access other relevant research materials
such as statistical tools, protocols, software etc can be accessed. If the data has been deposited in
an external repository this section should list the database, accession number and link to the DOI
for all data from the article that has been made publicly available. Data sets that have been
deposited in an external repository and have a DOI should also be appropriately cited in the
manuscript and included in the reference list.
• Competing interests
Please declare any financial or non-financial competing interests, or state that you have no
competing interests.
• Authors’ contributions
All submissions, other than those with a single author, must include an Authors’ Contributions
section which individually lists the specific contribution of each author. The list of Authors
should meet all of the following criteria; 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it
critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published.
All contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be included in the
acknowledgements.
We suggest the following format:
AB carried out the molecular lab work, participated in data analysis, carried out sequence
alignments, participated in the design of the study and drafted the manuscript; CD carried out
the statistical analyses; EF collected field data; GH conceived of the study, designed the study,
coordinated the study and helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for
publication.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
4
• Acknowledgements
Please acknowledge anyone who contributed to the study but did not meet the authorship
criteria.
• Funding statement
Please list the source of funding for each author.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Royal Society Open Science and I look
forward to receiving your revision. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to get
in touch.
Yours sincerely,
Emilie Aime
Senior Publishing Editor, Royal Society Open Science
[email protected]
Comments to Author:
Associate Editor's comments:
I am pleased that we will be able to accept your manuscript for publication, provided the
suggestions of the reviewer are addressed. Identifying specific maternal heuristics as the reviewer
suggests would broaden the appeal of the findings, and make a significant contribution to the
work and its communication.
Minor points/suggestions from the editorial team:
Abstract, line 30: take “that” out; the sentence is not grammatically correct.
Fig.2: The figure is impactful, but the legend could be made more useful if it were standalone,
with a little more narrative detail (e.g. spell out what the “effects” are)
Discussion: The first sentence could be crafted to provide a clearer overview of the findings; it
currently reads rather abrupt. A brief indication of the methodological innovation of the study
might also be helpful to non-specialist readers in the discussion.
Reviewers' Comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
Using vignettes, the authors demonstrate differences in judgments of how likely a hypothetical
women was to provide care to her child between populations. The vignettes varied characteristics
of the child, the mother, and the environment. The effect sizes found were in the order of a
quarter to three quarters of a point on a 5-point scale. The authors conclude that these differences
in judgments demonstrate the use of different maternal caretaking heuristics between the
industrialized and small-scale populations.
The strength of the manuscript is its comparative study of such widely varying populations and
its link to maternal heuristics. I agree that the conceptual framework of heuristics is a promising
advance over traditional approaches in terms of preferences and attitudes. Yet the manuscript
could make a stronger point if some of the maternal caretaking heuristics were identified. For
instance, different populations might consider different variables (varied in the vignettes), or just
one or two, or order them differently. To model these differences, fast-and-frugal trees would be
a possibility, as described in the Annual Review article by Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier cited in the
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
5
manuscript under review. Fast-and-frugal trees would make it possible to model yes-no maternal
care decisions, and the kind of variables and their order would model the differences between
populations. Another publication that might be helpful for modeling maternal care decisions is
Davis & Todd, Paternal investment by simple decision rules (in Gigerenzer et al., 1999, Simple
heuristics that make us smart. OUP). Although this article deals with parental investment in
birds, some of the constraints, such as scarceness of resources, apply to the situations described in
the vignettes. It should be possible to test such models of maternal caretaking heuristics against
the vignette data. If not, then candidate heuristics that might explain the differences should at
least be proposed as hypotheses for further studies.
Finally, a small point. A difference between the mean ratings in the population does not mean
that “mothers in the industrialized sample were sensitive to the scenario’s severity for herself and
her child …; mothers in the small-scale sample were insensitive to severity and child’s age.” (line
167-9). A difference of a fraction of a point means that “mothers in the industrialized sample were
more sensitive” (or less sensitive). The authors’ formulation suggests that all or none of the
mothers were sensitive.
Author's Response to Decision Letter for (RSOS-140518)
See Appendix A.
Appendix A
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
Revision Notes:
Royal Society Open Science (MS RSOS-140518, Kushnick et al.)
Dear Editor:
Thank you for allowing this opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below are detailed notes on the
way we dealt with the helpful comments provided by you, the reviewer, and the editorial team. We
have cut and pasted directly from the decision letter. Those sections can be identified by the
indented Courier New text. We feel that the manuscript has been strengthened through this
process and thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Geoff Kushnick
On behalf of myself and my co-authors
1. We made the following changes in response to the Associate Editor’s (AE) comments:
(AE) I am pleased that we will be able to accept your manuscript for
publication, provided the suggestions of the reviewer are addressed.
Identifying specific maternal heuristics as the reviewer suggests
would broaden the appeal of the findings, and make a significant
contribution to the work and its communication.
We are pleased that you will accept our manuscript for publication. Please see below for notes on
how we dealt with the reviewer’s suggestions.
(AE) Abstract, line 30: take “that” out; the sentence is not
grammatically correct.
We fixed this.
(AE) Fig.2: The figure is impactful, but the legend could be made more
useful if it were standalone, with a little more narrative detail
(e.g. spell out what the “effects” are).
We appreciate your assessment that the figure is impactful. We revised it in the following ways to
make it more impactful. We rewrote the legend so that it is standalone and spells out what the
effects are. We also revised and expanded the figure itself because the changes we made in
response to the major suggestion by the reviewer prompted us to change to population-specific
models to estimate population-specific effects (in the first manuscript, they were estimated using
the global industrialized and small-scale models—and these were less useful for illustrating the
population-specific heuristics).
(AE) Discussion: The first sentence could be crafted to provide a
clearer overview of the findings; it currently reads rather abrupt. A
brief indication of the methodological innovation of the study might
also be helpful to non-specialist readers in the discussion.
We converted the abrupt first sentence of the Discussion into an entire paragraph that provides a
clearer summary of the findings and briefly speaks to the innovation of the study design.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
2. We made the following changes in response to the Reviewer’s (R) comments:
(R) The strength of the manuscript is its comparative study of such
widely varying populations and its link to maternal heuristics. I
agree that the conceptual framework of heuristics is a promising
advance over traditional approaches in terms of preferences and
attitudes. Yet the manuscript could make a stronger point if some of
the maternal caretaking heuristics were identified. For instance,
different populations might consider different variables (varied in
the vignettes), or just one or two, or order them differently. To
model these differences, fast-and-frugal trees would be a possibility,
as described in the Annual Review article by Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier
cited in the manuscript under review. Fast-and-frugal trees would make
it possible to model yes-no maternal care decisions, and the kind of
variables and their order would model the differences between
populations. Another publication that might be helpful for modeling
maternal care decisions is Davis & Todd, Paternal investment by simple
decision rules (in Gigerenzer et al., 1999, Simple heuristics that
make us smart. OUP). Although this article deals with parental
investment in birds, some of the constraints, such as scarceness of
resources, apply to the situations described in the vignettes. It
should be possible to test such models of maternal caretaking
heuristics against the vignette data. If not, then candidate
heuristics that might explain the differences should at least be
proposed as hypotheses for further studies.
This is a really good series of points that we addressed in the following ways: (a) we added a
concluding paragraph that essentially lays out the details of the heuristics that we documented,
turning them into hypotheses for future researchers; (b) we changed Figure 1 so that it includes
population-specific heuristics in addition to what it showed before—i.e., the heuristics that
characterize the two clusters (industrialized and small-scale populations) under study; and, (c) we
expanded our discussion of the resource-access finding to include Davis et al.’s work on maternalcare heuristics in birds. Note that we had already cited a paper on Davis and Todd’s work on the
subject so we did not add a citation to the additional one. We also want to point out that, although
the reviewer suggested potentially using a fast-and-frugal tree to illustrate the heuristics under
study, we found that Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier themselves identify those trees as appropriate for
another type of heuristic. Although the factors in our study are binary, the heuristic is an additive
one (like Gigerenzer & Gaissmeier’s legal example—which we include in the modified discussion).
(R) Finally, a small point. A difference between the mean ratings in
the population does not mean that “mothers in the industrialized
sample were sensitive to the scenario’s severity for herself and her
child …; mothers in the small-scale sample were insensitive to
severity and child’s age.” (line 167-9). A difference of a fraction of
a point means that “mothers in the industrialized sample were more
sensitive” (or less sensitive). The authors’ formulation suggests that
all or none of the mothers were sensitive.
As suggested, we rephrased this passage for clarity and accuracy.
3. We made the following changes based on the Editorial Team’s suggestions:
We added all of the required sections, we added an Ethics, Competing Interests, Authors’
Contributions, and Funding Statements. The first draft already included Acknowledgements
and a Data Accessibility Statement.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
We added ® to trademarked products referred to in text.
4. We also made the following changes:
We made some slight adjustments to the numbering of the Supplementary Tables, as they were
incorrect in the draft.
We added DOI information for a handful of references.
We clarified some minor aspects of our study design—e.g., that the 8 vignette sets were 4 unique
sets each presented twice in different orders.