Unifying the Theories of Inclusive Fitness and Reciprocal Altruism

Fletcher,; Zwick,

doi:10.2307/3844730

Cited by 27 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Self-interested individuals will cooperate in an assorted population because, by virtue of being a cooperator, they are more likely to receive the benefits of other cooperators. In agreement with a number of authors we see assortment as the key factor in the evolution of cooperation (Eshel and Cavalli-Sforza, 1983;Fletcher and Zwick, 2006;Godfrey-Smith, 2008;Michod and Sanderson, 1985;Sober, 1992). …”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

The Evolution of Assortment with Multiple Simultaneous Games

Tudge

Jackson

Watson

et al. 2015

07/20/2015-07/24/2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current theories of social evolution predict the direction of selection for a given level of assortment. What remains unclear is how to determine the direction of selection on assortment itself if this were subject to evolutionary change. Here we define and analyse a simple model that allows us to investigate the evolution of assortment. We find that there is only a positive selection gradient for increased assortment if the population is polymorphic in the cooperative trait. We further show that if the individuals in question engage in multiple cooperative dilemmas simultaneously then there may be a continued selection on increased assortment which is ultimately sufficient to resolve severe dilemmas such as the prisoner's dilemma.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 71%

The Evolution of Assortment with Multiple Simultaneous Games

Tudge

Jackson

Watson

et al. 2015

07/20/2015-07/24/2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent work by Fletcher and Zwick [4] showed that the altruism of insect workers, and reciprocal altruism, where one individual helps another and gains a delayed reproductive benefit, can both be modeled with a form of Hamilton's rule. We reached an identical conclusion in a recent model of mutualisms that is also based upon a directfitness version of Hamilton's rule [5].…”

Section: Shifting Semanticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of sexual segregation has gained prominence in recent years, particularly in the literature on social ungulates [1][2][3][4][5]. It derives from the common observation that adult males and females tend to aggregate assortatively or, more formally, tend to be found in same-sex groups more often than is predicted by chance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It derives from the common observation that adult males and females tend to aggregate assortatively or, more formally, tend to be found in same-sex groups more often than is predicted by chance. Over the past decade, Kathreen Ruckstuhl and Peter Neuhaus have been instrumental in documenting this pattern and establishing a formal, conceptual framework for assessing its prevalence and functional significance [4,5]. In September 2002, they organized a three-day workshop at the University of Cambridge with the aim of consolidating information on sexual segregation across all vertebrates and integrating this knowledge into a common conceptual framework.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

There is nothing wrong with inclusive fitness

Foster

Wenseleers

Ratnieks

et al. 2006

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We thank Fletcher et al. [1] for their comments on our recent TREE article [2]. These can be condensed down to two key points. First, a change in the definition of altruism: to claim that altruism can evolve without relatedness, Fletcher et al have simply changed and broadened the definition used by Wilson and Hölldobler [3] and ourselves [2] to include reciprocal altruism. Second, the authors argue that group selection preceded kin selection (i.e. inclusive fitness) theory as a theoretical tool to explain altruism in the social insects. We discuss both but note that neither point weakens our article [2], or rescues the problems in that by Wilson and Hölldobler [3]. Shifting semanticsRecent work by Fletcher and Zwick [4] showed that the altruism of insect workers, and reciprocal altruism, where one individual helps another and gains a delayed reproductive benefit, can both be modeled with a form of Hamilton's rule. We reached an identical conclusion in a recent model of mutualisms that is also based upon a directfitness version of Hamilton's rule [5]. The central point is that the delayed feedback benefit in reciprocal altruism can be captured with a phenotypic correlation term, which emerges in the same way as genetic relatedness. On this basis, Fletcher et al. claim that altruism can occur through a phenotypic correlation alone, without genetic relatedness. However, this is only true if one changes the definition of altruism used by Wilson and Hölldobler [3], and ourselves [2]: 'Altruism is defined as behavior that benefits others at the cost of the lifetime production of offspring by the altruist. ' [3] Crucially, reciprocal altruism and the related phenomena that occur in mutualisms [5] cause a phenotypic feedback that benefits personal reproductive fitness. We appreciate that it is unfortunate that the nomenclature of both phenomena contain the word 'altruism', but we were careful to define our terms and, as with Wilson and Hölldobler [3], reciprocal altruism was not being discussed.Where does this leave us? We are happy to accept that reciprocal altruism and mutualism can evolve without genetic relatedness between actor and recipient [5]. This much is obvious as partners in a mutualism need not even be of the same species. However, an altruistic act that decreases the lifetime reproduction of the actor will only be selected when it increases propagation of the causal genes through individuals that are related at one or more loci.Which is the best: kin selection or group selection? We view this as an empty question. There are three different ways of partitioning social selection: (i) the inclusive fitness extension of individual selection; (ii) the direct fitness model of individual selection; (iii) and the withinand-between group selection model [6,7]. Fletcher et al. spend most of their time advocating the second (a form of kin selection theory) but then conclude that group selection is best [1]. In reality, all three models are important and useful tools for investigating and modeling social evolution ...

show abstract

“…Lehmann and Keller [17] give a general framework for the evolution of cooperation by incorporating several mechanisms in a single equation and show how the different models of cooperation are special cases of this equation. Meanwhile Marshall and Rowe [18] and Fletcher and Zwick [19] synthesized models that incorporate both kin selection and direct reciprocity to study the interactions between the two mechanisms and understand the basic principles underlying these mechanisms respectively. Even though these models attempt to unify the concepts and understand how different mechanisms interact with each other, they have given little attention to two important behaviors: namely punishment and discrimination (individual recognition and memory over time by others in the interacting group).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Selection and Reciprocity among Kin

Dahanukar¹,

Watve²

2009

TOBIOJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The question how Darwinian mechanisms lead to the evolution of individually costly cooperative behavior has given rise to a number of hypotheses. However, attempts to build a synthesis where different types of mechanisms coexist and interact at different levels of selections are still scarce. Here we derive simple game theoretical models where the group level conflicts are resolved by group selection while simultaneously within group competition is resolved by kin selection and reciprocity. We show that none of the mechanisms, when alone, is as robust in evolving and maintaining cooperation as a synthesis of all. Furthermore, we show that initially within group conflicts can be overcome only by kin selection and not reciprocity. However, once common, different types of reciprocities can maintain high levels of cooperation even if average relatedness among individuals is lowered, groups become large, and the benefits of cooperation are reduced. Based on the synthesis we also propose a possible route to the evolution of social and eusocial systems.

show abstract

Unifying the Theories of Inclusive Fitness and Reciprocal Altruism

Cited by 27 publications

References 23 publications

The Evolution of Assortment with Multiple Simultaneous Games

The Evolution of Assortment with Multiple Simultaneous Games

There is nothing wrong with inclusive fitness

Group Selection and Reciprocity among Kin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About