IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/u8tgq.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Distinguishing intergroup and long-distance relationships

Author

Listed:
  • Pisor, Anne

    (Washington State University)

  • Ross, Cody T.

Abstract

While intergroup relationships (IRs) dominate the literature on human sociality, long-distance relationships (LDRs) are also highly prevalent in human social life; however, they are often conflated with IRs or overlooked entirely. We suggest that by focusing on IRs to the exclusion of LDRs, scholars are painting an incomplete picture of human sociality. Though both IRs and LDRs function to provide resource access, LDRs likely evolved before IRs in the human lineage and are especially effective for both responding to widespread resource shortfalls and providing access to resources not locally available. To illustrate the importance of distinguishing IRs from LDRs, we draw on an example from rural Bolivia. This case study illustrates how (1) IRs and LDRs vary in importance, even between nearby communities, due to differences in socioecology and past experience, and (2) researcher expectations about IR prevalence can bias both data collection and data interpretation. We close by highlighting areas of LDR research that will expand our understanding of human sociality.

Suggested Citation

  • Pisor, Anne & Ross, Cody T., 2021. "Distinguishing intergroup and long-distance relationships," OSF Preprints u8tgq, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:u8tgq
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/u8tgq
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/61362472a2619b01d63b477b/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/u8tgq?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aizaki, Hideo, 2012. "Basic Functions for Supporting an Implementation of Choice Experiments in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 50(c02).
    2. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiang Wu & Bin Hu & Jie Xiong, 2020. "Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach," Post-Print hal-02489646, HAL.
    2. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    3. Anoek Castelein & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2020. "A multinomial and rank-ordered logit model with inter- and intra-individual heteroscedasticity," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-069/III, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    5. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    6. Yu-Cheng Ku & Tsun-Feng Chiang & Sheng-Mao Chang, 2017. "Is what you choose what you want?—outlier detection in choice-based conjoint analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 29-42, March.
    7. Sofía Monroy-Sais & Eduardo García-Frapolli & Francisco Mora & Margaret Skutsch & Alejandro Casas & Peter Rijnaldus Wilhelmus Gerritsen & David González-Jiménez, 2018. "Exploring How Land Tenure Affects Farmers’ Landscape Values: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    9. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Chakraborty, Rahul & Chakravarty, Sujoy, 2023. "Factors affecting acceptance of electric two-wheelers in India: A discrete choice survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 27-41.
    11. Scharwenka, Nina & Mattes, Martin & Kröll, Markus & Giese, Moritz, 2018. "Mehrwert durch nutzenbasierte Preissetzung bei Konsumgütern," Marketing Review St.Gallen, Universität St.Gallen, Institut für Marketing und Customer Insight, vol. 35(5), pages 46-53.
    12. Côté, Elizabeth & Đukan, Mak & Pons-Seres de Brauwer, Cristian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2022. "The price of actor diversity: Measuring project developers’ willingness to accept risks in renewable energy auctions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    13. Alisa E White & David A Lutz & Richard B Howarth & José R Soto, 2018. "Small-scale forestry and carbon offset markets: An empirical study of Vermont Current Use forest landowner willingness to accept carbon credit programs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    14. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian & Tyfield, David & Soopramanien, Didier, 2021. "On the heterogeneity in consumer preferences for electric vehicles across generations and cities in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Volker Kuppelwieser & Fouad Ben Abdelaziz & Olfa Meddeb, 2020. "Unstable interactions in customers’ decision making: an experimental proof," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 479-499, November.
    17. König, Tatjana Maria & Hein, Nika & Nimsgern, Vivien, 2022. "A value perspective on online review platforms: Profiling preference structures of online shops and traditional companies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 387-401.
    18. Monica Mihaela Maer Matei & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Cristina Mocanu, 2023. "Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Jinsung Kim & Minseok Kim & Sehyeuk Im & Donghyun Choi, 2021. "Competitiveness of E Commerce Firms through ESG Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Schuldt, Johannes & Doktor, Anna & Lichters, Marcel & Vogt, Bodo & Robra, Bernt-Peter, 2017. "Insurees’ preferences in hospital choice—A population-based study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(10), pages 1040-1046.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:u8tgq. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.