Source author record

Maroussia Favre

Maroussia Favre appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

physics.soc-ph Populations and Evolution Quantitative Methods

Catalog footprint

What is connected

4works

3topics

1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

Forms of social relationships in distinct cultural settings

We contribute to the understanding of social relationships within cultural contexts by proposing a connection between a social theory, relational models theory (RMT: Fiske 1991, 1992) and a social and political one, cultural or plural rationality theory (PRT: Douglas, 1982, Thompson et al., 1990). Drawing examples from the literature of both theories, we argue that each relational model of RMT may be implemented in ways compatible with each cultural bias of PRT. A cultural bias restrains the range of congruent implementations of relational models, but does not preclude any relational model altogether. This stands in contrast to earlier reconciliation attempts between PRT and RMT. Based on hypothetical one-to-one mappings, these attempts expect each cultural setting to be significantly associated with some, but not all, relational models. The framework we develop helps explain the findings of these previous attempts and provides insights into empirical research by clarifying which associations to expect between relationships and cultural contexts. We discuss the theoretical basis of our framework, including the idea that RMT and PRT apply to different levels of analysis: RMT's relational models are tied to relationships between two actors and PRT's cultural biases to structures of social networks.

preprint2015arXiv

A generic model of dyadic social relationships

We introduce a model of dyadic social interactions and establish its correspondence with relational models theory (RMT), a theory of human social relationships. RMT posits four elementary models of relationships governing human interactions, singly or in combination: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing. To these are added the limiting cases of asocial and null interactions, whereby people do not coordinate with reference to any shared principle. Our model is rooted in the observation that each individual in a dyadic interaction can do either the same thing as the other individual, a different thing or nothing at all. To represent these three possibilities, we consider two individuals that can each act in one out of three ways toward the other: perform a social action X or Y, or alternatively do nothing. We demonstrate that the relationships generated by this model aggregate into six exhaustive and disjoint categories. We propose that four of these categories match the four relational models, while the remaining two correspond to the asocial and null interactions defined in RMT. We generalize our results to the presence of N social actions. We infer that the four relational models form an exhaustive set of all possible dyadic relationships based on social coordination. Hence, we contribute to RMT by offering an answer to the question of why there could exist just four relational models. In addition, we discuss how to use our representation to analyze data sets of dyadic social interactions, and how social actions may be valued and matched by the agents.

preprint2015arXiv

Cancer risk is not (just) bad luck

Tomasetti and Vogelstein recently proposed that the majority of variation in cancer risk among tissues is due to "bad luck," that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal noncancerous stem cells. They generalize this finding to cancer overall, claiming that "the stochastic effects of DNA replication appear to be the major contributor to cancer in humans." We show that this conclusion results from a logical fallacy based on ignoring the influence of population heterogeneity in correlations exhibited at the level of the whole population. Because environmental and genetic factors cannot explain the huge differences in cancer rates between different organs, it is wrong to conclude that these factors play a minor role in cancer rates. In contrast, we show that one can indeed measure huge differences in cancer rates between different organs and, at the same time, observe a strong effect of environmental and genetic factors in cancer rates.

preprint2012arXiv

Strong gender differences in reproductive success variance, and the times to the most recent common ancestors

The Time To the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) based on human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is estimated to be twice that based on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY). These TMRCAs have special demographic implications because mtDNA is transmitted only from mother to child, and NRY from father to son. Therefore, mtDNA reflects female history, and NRY, male history. To investigate what caused the two-to-one female-male TMRCA ratio in humans, we develop a forward-looking agent-based model (ABM) with overlapping generations and individual life cycles. We implement two main mating systems: polygynandry and polygyny with different degrees in between. In each mating system, the male population can be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. In the latter case, some males are `alphas' and others are `betas', which reflects the extent to which they are favored by female mates. A heterogeneous male population implies a competition among males with the purpose of signaling as alphas. The introduction of a heterogeneous male population is found to reduce by a factor 2 the probability of finding equal female and male TMRCAs and shifts the distribution of the TMRCA ratio to higher values. We find that high male-male competition is necessary to reproduce a TMRCA ratio of 2: less than half the males can be alphas and betas can have at most half the fitness of alphas. In addition, in the modes that maximize the probability of having a TMRCA ratio between 1.5 and 2.5, the present generation has 1.4 times as many female as male ancestors. We also tested the effect of sex-biased migration and sex-specific death rates and found that these are unlikely to explain alone the sex-biased TMRCA ratio observed in humans. Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female-female competition.