%0 Journal Article %A Evans, Cara L. %A Greenhill, Simon J. %A Watts, Joseph %A List, Johann-Mattis %A Botero, Carlos A. %A Gray, Russell D. %A Kirby, Kathryn %+ Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society %T The uses and abuses of tree thinking in cultural evolution : %G eng %U https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0008-EB98-4 %R 10.1098/rstb.2020.0056 %7 2021-05-17 %D 2021 %8 05.07.2021 %* Review method: peer-reviewed %X Modern phylogenetic methods are increasingly being used to address questions about macro-level patterns in cultural evolution. These methods can illuminate the unobservable histories of cultural traits and identify the evolutionary drivers of trait-change over time, but their application is not without pitfalls. Here we outline the current scope of research in cultural tree thinking, highlighting a toolkit of best practices to navigate and avoid the pitfalls and ‘abuses’ associated with their application. We emphasise two principles that support the appropriate application of phylogenetic methodologies in cross-cultural research: researchers should (1) draw on multiple lines of evidence when deciding if and which types of phylogenetic methods and models are suitable for their cross-cultural data, and (2) carefully consider how different cultural traits might have different evolutionary histories across space and time. When used appropriately phylogenetic methods can provide powerful insights into the processes of evolutionary change that have shaped the broad patterns of human history. %K cultural evolution, phylogenetic comparative methods, cross-cultural research, cultural macro-evolution %Z 1. Introduction 2. Are the data appropriate for comparative phylogenetic analysis? 3. Tree construction: are phylogenetic trees accurate representations of cultural histories? 4. Mapping other cultural features to lexical trees: divergent evolutionary histories, mechanistic (un)identifiability, and model shortcomings 4.1 Do different cultural traits have different evolutionary histories? 4.2 When is the use of methods that require historical coherence justified? 4.3 What about methods that detect yet do not require tree-like structure in the data? 4.4 Are there correlations between the drivers of cross-cultural similarity that create a false impression of ‘fit’ to the language tree? 4.5 Are model shortcomings giving unwarranted precedence to tree-like inheritance patterns? 5. Conclusion %J Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences %V 376 %N 1828 %] 20200056 %I Royal Society %C London %@ 0962-8436