The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory

Social evolution is a central topic in evolutionary biology, with the evolution of eusociality (societies with altruistic, non-reproductive helpers) representing a long-standing evolutionary conundrum. Recent critiques have questioned the validity of the leading theory for explaining social evolution and eusociality, namely inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory. I review recent and past literature to argue that these critiques do not succeed. Inclusive fitness theory has added fundamental insights to natural selection theory. These are the realization that selection on a gene for social behaviour depends on its effects on co-bearers, the explanation of social behaviours as unalike as altruism and selfishness using the same underlying parameters, and the explanation of within-group conflict in terms of non-coinciding inclusive fitness optima. A proposed alternative theory for eusocial evolution assumes mistakenly that workers' interests are subordinate to the queen's, contains no new elements and fails to make novel predictions. The haplodiploidy hypothesis has yet to be rigorously tested and positive relatedness within diploid eusocial societies supports inclusive fitness theory. The theory has made unique, falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed, and its evidence base is extensive and robust. Hence, inclusive fitness theory deserves to keep its position as the leading theory for social evolution.     

A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism

We present a simple framework that highlights the most fundamental requirement for the evolution of altruism: assortment between individuals carrying the cooperative genotype and the helping behaviours of others with which these individuals interact. We partition the fitness effects on individuals into those due to self and those due to the 'interaction environment', and show that it is the latter that is most fundamental to understanding the evolution of altruism. We illustrate that while kinship or genetic similarity among those interacting may generate a favourable structure of interaction environments, it is not a fundamental requirement for the evolution of altruism, and even suicidal aid can theoretically evolve without help ever being exchanged among genetically similar individuals. Using our simple framework, we also clarify a common confusion made in the literature between alternative fitness accounting methods (which may equally apply to the same biological circumstances) and unique causal mechanisms for creating the assortment necessary for altruism to be favoured by natural selection.     

Questioning the cultural evolution of altruism

The evolutionary foundations of helping among nonkin in humans have been the object of intense debates in the past decades. One thesis has had a prominent influence in this debate: the suggestion that genuine altruism, strictly defined as a form of help that comes at a net fitness cost for the benefactor, might have evolved owing to cultural transmission. The gene–culture coevolution literature is wont to claim that cultural evolution changes the selective pressures that normally act to limit the emergence of altruistic behaviours. This paper aims to recall, however, that cultural transmission yields altruism only to the extent that it relies on maladaptive mechanisms, such as conformist imitation and (in some cases) payoff‐biased transmission. This point is sometimes obscured in the literature by a confusion between genuine altruism, maladaptive by definition, and mutualistic forms of cooperation, that benefit all parties in the long run. Theories of cultural altruism do not lift the selective pressures weighing on strictly altruistic actions; they merely shift the burden of maladaptation from social cognition to cultural transmission.     

Group selection, kin selection, altruism and cooperation: When inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong

Group selection theory has a history of controversy. After a period of being in disrepute, models of group selection have regained some ground, but not without a renewed debate over their importance as a theoretical tool. In this paper I offer a simple framework for models of the evolution of altruism and cooperation that allows us to see how and to what extent both a classification with and one without group selection terminology are insightful ways of looking at the same models. Apart from this dualistic view, this paper contains a result that states that inclusive fitness correctly predicts the direction of selection for one class of models, represented by linear public goods games. Equally important is that this result has a flip side: there is a more general, but still very realistic class of models, including models with synergies, for which it is not possible to summarize their predictions on the basis of an evaluation of inclusive fitness.     

Rationality and social behavior

This article penetrates the relationship between social behavior and rationality. A critical analysis is made of efforts to classify some behaviors as altruistic, as they simultaneously meet criteria of rationality by not truly being self-destructive. Newcomb's paradox is one attempt to create a hybrid behavior that is both irrational and still meets some criterion of rationality. Such dubious rationality is often seen as a source of altruistic behavior. Group selection is a controversial topic. Sober and Wilson (Unto Others--The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998) suggest that a very wide concept of group selection might be used to explain altruism. This concept also includes kin selection and reciprocity, which blurs its focus. The latter mechanisms hardly need further arguments to prove their existence. This article suggests that it is group selection in a strict sense that should be investigated to limit semantic neologism and confusion. In evaluation, the effort to muster a mechanism for altruism out of group selection has not been successful. However, this is not the end to group selection, but rather a good reason to investigate more promising possibilities. There is little reason to burden group selection with the instability of altruism caused by altruistic members of a group having lower fitness than egoistic members. Group selection is much more likely to develop in combination with group egoism. A common project is supported by incitement against free riding, where conformist members joined in solidarity achieve a higher fitness than members pursuing more individualistic options. Group egoism is in no conflict with rationality, and the effects of group selection will be supported rather than threatened by individual selection. Empirical evidence indicates a high level of traits such as conformism and out-group antagonism in line with group egoism. These traits are also likely candidates for behavior favored by group selection since they homogenize the group and link the different individuals closer to one another and a similar fate.     

The evolution of cooperation and altruism--a general framework and a classification of models

One of the enduring puzzles in biology and the social sciences is the origin and persistence of intraspecific cooperation and altruism in humans and other species. Hundreds of theoretical models have been proposed and there is much confusion about the relationship between these models. To clarify the situation, we developed a synthetic conceptual framework that delineates the conditions necessary for the evolution of altruism and cooperation. We show that at least one of the four following conditions needs to be fulfilled: direct benefits to the focal individual performing a cooperative act; direct or indirect information allowing a better than random guess about whether a given individual will behave cooperatively in repeated reciprocal interactions; preferential interactions between related individuals; and genetic correlation between genes coding for altruism and phenotypic traits that can be identified. When one or more of these conditions are met, altruism or cooperation can evolve if the cost-to-benefit ratio of altruistic and cooperative acts is greater than a threshold value. The cost-to-benefit ratio can be altered by coercion, punishment and policing which therefore act as mechanisms facilitating the evolution of altruism and cooperation. All the models proposed so far are explicitly or implicitly built on these general principles, allowing us to classify them into four general categories.     

Cultural transmission and the evolution of human behaviour: a general approach based on the Price equation

Transmitted culture can be viewed as an inheritance system somewhat independent of genes that is subject to processes of descent with modification in its own right. Although many authors have conceptualized cultural change as a Darwinian process, there is no generally agreed formal framework for defining key concepts such as natural selection, fitness, relatedness and altruism for the cultural case. Here, we present and explore such a framework using the Price equation. Assuming an isolated, independently measurable culturally transmitted trait, we show that cultural natural selection maximizes cultural fitness, a distinct quantity from genetic fitness, and also that cultural relatedness and cultural altruism are not reducible to or necessarily related to their genetic counterparts. We show that antagonistic coevolution will occur between genes and culture whenever cultural fitness is not perfectly aligned with genetic fitness, as genetic selection will shape psychological mechanisms to avoid susceptibility to cultural traits that bear a genetic fitness cost. We discuss the difficulties with conceptualizing cultural change using the framework of evolutionary theory, the degree to which cultural evolution is autonomous from genetic evolution, and the extent to which cultural change should be seen as a Darwinian process. We argue that the nonselection components of evolutionary change are much more important for culture than for genes, and that this and other important differences from the genetic case mean that different approaches and emphases are needed for cultural than genetic processes.     

Kin selection and coefficients of relatedness in family-structured populations with inbreeding

We consider family specific fitnesses that depend on mixed strategies of two basic phenotypes or behaviours. Pairwise interactions are assumed, but they are restricted to occur between sibs. To study the change in frequency of a rare mutant allele, we consider two different forms of weak selection, one applied through small differences in genotypic values determining individual mixed strategies, the other through small differences in viabilities according to the behaviours chosen by interacting sibs. Under these two specific forms of weak selection, we deduce conditions for initial increase in frequency of a rare mutant allele for autosomal genes in the partial selfing model as well as autosomal and sex-linked genes in the partial sib-mating model with selection before mating or selection after mating. With small differences in mixed strategies, we show that conditions for protection of a mutant allele are tantamount to conditions for initial increase in frequency obtained in additive kin selection models. With particular reference to altruism versus selfishness, we provide explicit ranges of values for the selfing or sib-mating rate based on a fixed cost-benefit ratio and the dominance scheme that allow the spreading of a rare mutant allele into the population. This study confirms that more inbreeding does not necessarily promote the evolution of altruism. Under the hypothesis of small differences in viabilities, the situation is much more intricate unless an additive model is assumed. In general however, conditions for initial increase in frequency of a mutant allele can be obtained in terms of fitness effects that depend on the genotypes of interacting individuals or their mates and generalized conditional coefficients of relatedness according to the inbreeding condition of the interacting individuals.     

INTERACTING PHENOTYPES AND THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. III. SOCIAL EVOLUTION

Interactions among conspecifics influence social evolution through two distinct but intimately related paths. First, they provide the opportunity for indirect genetic effects (IGEs), where genes expressed in one individual influence the expression of traits in others. Second, interactions can generate social selection when traits expressed in one individual influence the fitness of others. Here, we present a quantitative genetic model of multivariate trait evolution that integrates the effects of both IGEs and social selection, which have previously been modeled independently. We show that social selection affects evolutionary change whenever the breeding value of one individual covaries with the phenotype of its social partners. This covariance can be created by both relatedness and IGEs, which are shown to have parallel roles in determining evolutionary response. We show that social selection is central to the estimation of inclusive fitness and derive a version of Hamilton's rule showing the symmetrical effects of relatedness and IGEs on the evolution of altruism. We illustrate the utility of our approach using altruism, greenbeards, aggression, and weapons as examples. Our model provides a general predictive equation for the evolution of social phenotypes that encompasses specific cases such as kin selection and reciprocity. The parameters can be measured empirically, and we emphasize the importance of considering both IGEs and social selection, in addition to relatedness, when testing hypotheses about social evolution.     

Adaptations for social cognition in the primate brain

Studies of the factors affecting reproductive success in group-living monkeys have traditionally focused on competitive traits, like the acquisition of high dominance rank. Recent research, however, indicates that the ability to form cooperative social bonds has an equally strong effect on fitness. Two implications follow. First, strong social bonds make individuals'' fitness interdependent and the ‘free-rider’ problem disappears. Second, individuals must make adaptive choices that balance competition and cooperation—often with the same partners. The proximate mechanisms underlying these behaviours are only just beginning to be understood. Recent results from cognitive and systems neuroscience provide us some evidence that many social and non-social decisions are mediated ultimately by abstract, domain-general neural mechanisms. However, other populations of neurons in the orbitofrontal cortex, striatum, amygdala and parietal cortex specifically encode the type, importance and value of social information. Whether these specialized populations of neurons arise by selection or through developmental plasticity in response to the challenges of social life remains unknown. Many brain areas are homologous and show similar patterns of activity in human and non-human primates. In both groups, cortical activity is modulated by hormones like oxytocin and by the action of certain genes that may affect individual differences in behaviour. Taken together, results suggest that differences in cooperation between the two groups are a matter of degree rather than constituting a fundamental, qualitative distinction.     

Are flies kind to kin? The role of intra- and inter-sexual relatedness in mediating reproductive conflict

As individual success often comes at the expense of others, interactions between the members of a species are frequently antagonistic, especially in the context of reproduction. In theory, this conflict may be reduced in magnitude when kin interact, as cooperative behaviour between relatives can result in increased inclusive fitness. Recent tests of the potential role of cooperative behaviour between brothers in Drosophila melanogaster have proved to be both exciting and controversial. We set out to replicate these experiments, which have profound implications for the study of kin selection and sexual conflict, and to expand upon them by also examining the potential role of kinship between males and females in reproductive interactions. While we did observe reduced fighting and courtship effort between competing brothers, contrary to previous studies we did not detect any fitness benefit to females as a result of the modification of male antagonistic behaviours. Furthermore, we did not observe any differential treatment of females by their brothers, as would be expected if the intensity of sexual conflict was mediated by kin selection. In the light of these results, we propose an alternative explanation for observed differences in male–male conflict and provide preliminary empirical support for this hypothesis.     

Distinctions among reciprocal altruism,kin selection,and cooperation and a model for the initial evolution of beneficent behavior

Reciprocal altruism is usually regarded as distinct from kin selection. However, because reciprocators are likely to establish long-term relations and to deliver most of their aid to other individuals genetically predisposed to reciprocation, most acts of reciprocal altruism should involve indirect increments to inclusive fitness, at least as regards alleles for reciprocation. Thus, as usually defined, reciprocal altruism is not clearly distinct from kin selection because both involve indirect increments to inclusive fitness. We propose a new definition for reciprocal altruism that makes the phenomenon distinct from kin selection and allows for reciprocation between nonrelatives in which current costs exceed future benefits returned to the reciprocal altruist. Cooperation and reciprocal altruism are often considered synonymous or different only in the timing of donating and receiving aid. We show, however, that there are other critical differences between reciprocal altruism and other forms of cooperation, most importantly, the latter often involve no clearly identifiable aid. We propose a four-category system to encompass the range of cooperative and beneficent behaviors that occur in nature (reciprocal altruism, pseudoreciprocity, simultaneous cooperation and by-product beneficence). Reciprocal altruism must involve aid that is returned to an original donor as a result of behavior that has a net cost to an original recipient. Our simplest category of cooperative/beneficent behavior, “by-product beneficence,” occurs when a selfish act also benefits another individual and requires no prior or subsequent interactions between the individuals involved. By-product beneficence may be the primitive state from which more complicated types of cooperative/beneficent behavior evolved. We show via simple models that by-product beneficence can allow for the initial increase of helping behavior in a completely unstructured population although the individuals showing such behavior pay all the costs while sharing the benefits with other individuals. Previous models that attempted to explain the initial increase of cooperative/beneficent behavior were much more complex and were based on the prisoner's dilemma, which does not accurately reflect most forms of cooperation and beneficence that occur in nature.     

Invasion fitness,inclusive fitness,and reproductive numbers in heterogeneous populations

How should fitness be measured to determine which phenotype or “strategy” is uninvadable when evolution occurs in a group‐structured population subject to local demographic and environmental heterogeneity? Several fitness measures, such as basic reproductive number, lifetime dispersal success of a local lineage, or inclusive fitness have been proposed to address this question, but the relationships between them and their generality remains unclear. Here, we ascertain uninvadability (all mutant strategies always go extinct) in terms of the asymptotic per capita number of mutant copies produced by a mutant lineage arising as a single copy in a resident population (“invasion fitness”). We show that from invasion fitness uninvadability is equivalently characterized by at least three conceptually distinct fitness measures: (i) lineage fitness, giving the average individual fitness of a randomly sampled mutant lineage member; (ii) inclusive fitness, giving a reproductive value weighted average of the direct fitness costs and relatedness weighted indirect fitness benefits accruing to a randomly sampled mutant lineage member; and (iii) basic reproductive number (and variations thereof) giving lifetime success of a lineage in a single group, and which is an invasion fitness proxy. Our analysis connects approaches that have been deemed different, generalizes the exact version of inclusive fitness to class‐structured populations, and provides a biological interpretation of natural selection on a mutant allele under arbitrary strength of selection.     

Selective pressures for accurate altruism targeting: evidence from digital evolution for difficult-to-test aspects of inclusive fitness theory

Inclusive fitness theory predicts that natural selection will favour altruist genes that are more accurate in targeting altruism only to copies of themselves. In this paper, we provide evidence from digital evolution in support of this prediction by competing multiple altruist-targeting mechanisms that vary in their accuracy in determining whether a potential target for altruism carries a copy of the altruist gene. We compete altruism-targeting mechanisms based on (i) kinship (kin targeting), (ii) genetic similarity at a level greater than that expected of kin (similarity targeting), and (iii) perfect knowledge of the presence of an altruist gene (green beard targeting). Natural selection always favoured the most accurate targeting mechanism available. Our investigations also revealed that evolution did not increase the altruism level when all green beard altruists used the same phenotypic marker. The green beard altruism levels stably increased only when mutations that changed the altruism level also changed the marker (e.g. beard colour), such that beard colour reliably indicated the altruism level. For kin- and similarity-targeting mechanisms, we found that evolution was able to stably adjust altruism levels. Our results confirm that natural selection favours altruist genes that are increasingly accurate in targeting altruism to only their copies. Our work also emphasizes that the concept of targeting accuracy must include both the presence of an altruist gene and the level of altruism it produces.     

Can natural selection favour altruism between species?

Darwin suggested that the discovery of altruism between species would annihilate his theory of natural selection. However, it has not been formally shown whether between‐species altruism can evolve by natural selection, or why this could never happen. Here, we develop a spatial population genetic model of two interacting species, showing that indiscriminate between species helping can be favoured by natural selection. We then ask if this helping behaviour constitutes altruism between species, using a linear‐regression analysis to separate the total action of natural selection into its direct and indirect (kin selected) components. We show that our model can be interpreted in two ways, as either altruism within species, or altruism between species. This ambiguity arises depending on whether or not we treat genes in the other species as predictors of an individual's fitness, which is equivalent to treating these individuals as agents (actors or recipients). Our formal analysis, which focuses upon evolutionary dynamics rather than agents and their agendas, cannot resolve which is the better approach. Nonetheless, because a within‐species altruism interpretation is always possible, our analysis supports Darwin's suggestion that natural selection does not favour traits that provide benefits exclusively to individuals of other species.     

Hamilton's rule and the causes of social evolution

Hamilton''s rule is a central theorem of inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory and predicts that social behaviour evolves under specific combinations of relatedness, benefit and cost. This review provides evidence for Hamilton''s rule by presenting novel syntheses of results from two kinds of study in diverse taxa, including cooperatively breeding birds and mammals and eusocial insects. These are, first, studies that empirically parametrize Hamilton''s rule in natural populations and, second, comparative phylogenetic analyses of the genetic, life-history and ecological correlates of sociality. Studies parametrizing Hamilton''s rule are not rare and demonstrate quantitatively that (i) altruism (net loss of direct fitness) occurs even when sociality is facultative, (ii) in most cases, altruism is under positive selection via indirect fitness benefits that exceed direct fitness costs and (iii) social behaviour commonly generates indirect benefits by enhancing the productivity or survivorship of kin. Comparative phylogenetic analyses show that cooperative breeding and eusociality are promoted by (i) high relatedness and monogamy and, potentially, by (ii) life-history factors facilitating family structure and high benefits of helping and (iii) ecological factors generating low costs of social behaviour. Overall, the focal studies strongly confirm the predictions of Hamilton''s rule regarding conditions for social evolution and their causes.     

Human life histories and the demographic transition: a case study from Finland, 1870-1949

The life histories of humans who were engaged in reproduction during the demographic transition were investigated. It was discovered that these life histories were subject to great changes during the period involving the birth cohorts from the years 1870-1949. Although the number of all and surviving children decreased during this period, the individual fitness values (lambda) of females remained quite even. The lambda values are sensitive not only to reproductive quantity but also to the timing of reproduction. Therefore, the effective change in female fitness during the demographic transition may not be as dramatic as previously thought. When studying the level of selection (or rather the opportunity for selection), it was found that mortality selection steadily decreased to a very low level. However, fertility selection and total selection, which were relatively low for the cohorts 1870-1889, increased before the steep decrease that was detected for the cohorts 1930-1949. The situation reflects the presence of considerable variance in fertility for the cohorts 1890-1929, when the mean fertility was decreasing. A previously found trade-off between female longevity and reproductive success appeared less significant, apparently due to the presence of more plentiful resources and voluntary limitation of reproduction. The deviation from the potential fitness maximization and the presence of subfertility have become prevalent in human populations.     

Why reciprocal altruism is not a kind of group selection

Reciprocal altruism was originally formulated in terms of individual selection and most theorists continue to view it in this way. However, this interpretation of reciprocal altruism has been challenged by Sober and Wilson (1998). They argue that reciprocal altruism (as well as all other forms of altruism) evolves by the process of group selection. In this paper, we argue that the original interpretation of reciprocal altruism is the correct one. We accomplish this by arguing that if fitness attaches to (at minimum) entire life cycles, then the kind of fitness exchanges needed to form the group-level in such situations is not available. Reciprocal altruism is thus a result of individual selection and when it evolves, it does so because it is individually advantageous.     

Selfishness and altruism can coexist when help is subject to diminishing returns

Altruism and selfishness are 30-50% heritable in man in both Western and non-Western populations. This genetically based variation in altruism and selfishness requires explanation. In non-human animals, altruism is generally directed towards relatives, and satisfies the condition known as Hamilton's rule. This nepotistic altruism evolves under natural selection only if the ratio of the benefit of receiving help to the cost of giving it exceeds a value that depends on the relatedness of the individuals involved. Standard analyses assume that the benefit provided by each individual is the same but it is plausible in some cases that as more individuals contribute, help is subject to diminishing returns. We analyse this situation using a single-locus two-allele model of selection in a diploid population with the altruistic allele dominant to the selfish allele. The analysis requires calculation of the relationship between the fitnesses of the genotypes and the frequencies of the genes. The fitnesses vary not only with the genotype of the individual but also with the distribution of phenotypes amongst the sibs of the individual and this depends on the genotypes of his parents. These calculations are not possible by direct fitness or ESS methods but are possible using population genetics. Our analysis shows that diminishing returns change the operation of natural selection and the outcome can now be a stable equilibrium between altruistic and selfish alleles rather than the elimination of one allele or the other. We thus provide a plausible genetic model of kin selection that leads to the stable coexistence in the same population of both altruistic and selfish individuals. This may explain reported genetic variation in altruism in man.