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, September.
    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. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    4. Mengelkamp, Esther & Schönland, Thomas & Huber, Julian & Weinhardt, Christof, 2019. "The value of local electricity - A choice experiment among German residential customers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 294-303.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Isihara, Paul & Shi, Chaojun & Ward, Jonathan & O'Malley, Leo & Laney, Skyler & Diedrichs, Danilo & Flores, Gabriel, 2020. "Identifying most typical and most ideal attribute levels in small populations of expert decision makers: Studying the Go/No Go decision of disaster relief organizations," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C).
    9. Merle Gijsbers & Iris Elise Keizer & Stephanie Else Schouten & Janneke Louise Trompert & Catharina G. M. Groothuis-Oudshoorn & Janine Astrid Til, 2021. "Public Preferences in Priority Setting when Admitting Patients to the ICU During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Pilot Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(3), pages 331-338, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Ryosuke Abe & Yusuke Kita & Daisuke Fukuda, 2020. "An Experimental Approach to Understanding the Impacts of Monitoring Methods on Use Intentions for Autonomous Vehicle Services: Survey Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    13. Poulissen, Davey & de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Künn, Annemarie, 2021. "Employers’ willingness to invest in the training of temporary workers: a discrete choice experiment," Research Memorandum 010, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    14. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    15. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Aruga, Kentaka & Bolt, Timothy & Pest, Przemysław, 2021. "Energy policy trade-offs in Poland: A best-worst scaling discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    19. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.
    20. Basem Al-Omari & Joviana Farhat & Mujahed Shraim, 2023. "The Role of Web-Based Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Technology in Eliciting Patients’ Preferences for Osteoarthritis Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-15, February.

    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.