Reputations are an important aspect of human social interactions and cooperation, but much of the research on reputations has focused on a narrow range of domains such as prosociality and aggressiveness. This study aims to provide an empirical view of reputation domains across different cultures by analyzing ethnographic texts on reputations from 153 cultures. The findings suggest that reputational domains vary across cultures, with reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, and neural capital being widespread. Reputation domains are more variable for males than females, and certain reputation domains are interrelated. The study highlights the need for future research on the evolution of cooperation and human sociality to consider a wider range of reputation domains and their variability across different social and ecological contexts and genders.

Reputations are an important aspect of human social interactions and cooperation, but much of the research on reputations has focused on a narrow range of domains such as prosociality and aggressiveness. This study aims to provide an empirical view of reputation domains across different cultures by analyzing ethnographic texts on reputations from 153 cultures. The findings suggest that reputational domains vary across cultures, with reputations for cultural conformity, prosociality, social status, and neural capital being widespread. Reputation domains are more variable for males than females, and certain reputation domains are interrelated. The study highlights the need for future research on the evolution of cooperation and human sociality to consider a wider range of reputation domains and their variability across different social and ecological contexts and genders.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

In this article, the authors examine the effects of social structure, specifically descent and residence, on areas of female reputation. Additionally, they examine the effect of the author's gender on the instances of female reputation included in ethnographic texts.

The authors of this exploratory study tested predictions from five different theoretical models for the evolution of ethnoscientific expertise. They claim support for three of the models. They then compared cultural variables and their five models to three different knowledge domains: conceptual (unable to be easily observed), motor (easily observable), and medicinal. Their results indicate that their cultural transmission model is associated with the motor knowledge domain and that their proprietary knowledge model is associated with the medicinal knowledge domain.

The authors of this exploratory study tested predictions from five different theoretical models for the evolution of ethnoscientific expertise. They claim support for three of the models. They then compared cultural variables and their five models to three different knowledge domains: conceptual (unable to be easily observed), motor (easily observable), and medicinal. Their results indicate that their cultural transmission model is associated with the motor knowledge domain and that their proprietary knowledge model is associated with the medicinal knowledge domain.