Altruism and organism: disentangling the themes of multilevel selection theory

The evolution of groups into adaptive units, similar to single organisms in the coordination of their parts, is one major theme of multilevel selection theory. Another major theme is the evolution of altruistic behaviors that benefit others at the expense of self. These themes are often assumed to be strongly linked, such that altruism is required for group-level adaptation. Multilevel selection theory reveals a more complex relationship between the themes of altruism and organism. Adaptation at every level of the biological hierarchy requires a corresponding process of natural selection, which includes the fundamental ingredients of phenotypic variation, heritability, and fitness consequences. These ingredients can exist for many kinds of groups and do not require the extreme genetic variation among groups that is usually associated with the evolution of altruism. Thus, it is reasonable to expect higher-level units to evolve into adaptive units with respect to specific traits, even when their members are not genealogically related and do not behave in ways that are obviously altruistic. As one example, the concept of a group mind, which has been well documented in the social insects, may be applicable to other species.     

Altruists Proliferate Even at a Selective Disadvantage within Their Own Niche

The evolutionary origin of altruism is a long-standing puzzle. Numerous explanations have been proposed, most prominently based on inclusive fitness or group selection. One possibility that has not yet been considered is that new niches will be created disproportionately often when altruism appears, perhaps by chance, causing altruists to be over-represented in such new niches. This effect is a novel variant of group selection in which altruistic groups benefit by discovering unoccupied niches instead of by competing for the limited resources within a single niche. Both an analytical population genetics model and computational simulations support that altruism systematically arises due to this side effect of increased carrying capacity even when it is strongly selected against within any given niche. In fact, even when selection is very strongly negative and altruism does not develop in most populations, it can still be expected to be observed in a consistent fraction of species. The ecological structure provided by niches thereby may be sufficient for altruists to proliferate even if they are always at a disadvantage within each niche considered individually.     

ALTRUISM IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS DERIVED FROM SIBLING GROUPS: THE HAYSTACK MODEL REVISITED

A group-selection model is presented in which each group is initiated by a single fertilized female and persists for several generations before dispersal. Maynard Smith (1964) concluded that altruism could not plausibly evolve under these circumstances. I show that his conclusion is an artifact of a simplifying assumption that amounts to a worst-case scenario for group selection. When the standard donor-recipient equations for altruistic behavior are used in Maynard Smith's model, Mendelian populations derived from sibling groups are often more favorable for the evolution of altruism than are the sibling groups themselves. In general, long-term and large-scale aspects of population structure may at times be important in the evolution of altruistic and other group-advantageous behaviors.     

Kin Selection in Primate Groups

Altruism poses a problem for evolutionary biologists because natural selection is not expected to favor behaviors that are beneficial to recipients, but costly to actors. The theory of kin selection, first articulated by Hamilton (1964), provides a solution to the problem. Hamilton's well-known rule (br > c) provides a simple algorithm for the evolution of altruism via kin selection. Because kin recognition is a crucial requirement of kin selection, it is important to know whether and how primates can recognize their relatives. While conventional wisdom has been that primates can recognize maternal kin, but not paternal kin, this view is being challenged by new findings. The ability to recognize kin implies that kin selection may shape altruistic behavior in primate groups. I focus on two cases in which kin selection is tightly woven into the fabric of social life. For female baboons, macaques, and vervets maternal kinship is an important axis of social networks, coalitionary activity, and dominance relationships. Detailed studies of the patterning of altruistic interactions within these species illustrate the extent and limits of nepotism in their social lives. Carefully integrated analyses of behavior, demography, and genetics among red howlers provide an independent example of how kin selection shapes social organization and behavior. In red howlers, kin bonds shape the life histories and reproductive performance of both males and female. The two cases demonstrate that kin selection can be a powerful source of altruistic activity within primate groups. However, to fully assess the role of kin selection in primate groups, we need more information about the effects of kinship on the patterning of behavior across the Primates and accurate information about paternal kin relationships.     

The relative roles of kinship and reciprocity in explaining primate altruism

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of altruistic behaviours. Their relative roles in explaining actual cases of animal altruism are, however, unclear. In particular, while kin selection is widely believed to have a pervasive influence on animal behaviour, reciprocity is generally thought to be rare. Despite this general agreement, there has been no direct test comparing the relative roles of kinship and reciprocity in explaining animal altruism. In this paper, we report on the results of such a test based on a meta-analysis of allogrooming in primates, grooming being probably the most common altruistic behaviour among mammals. In direct contrast to the prevailing view, reciprocity played a much larger role than kinship in explaining primate allogrooming. These results point to a more significant role of reciprocity in the evolution of animal altruism than is generally acknowledged.
Ecology Letters (2010) 13: 45–50     

Altruism, Altruistic Punishment and Social Investment

The concept of altruism is used in very different forms by computer scientists,economists, philosophers, social scientists, psychologists and biologists. Yet, in order to be useful in social simulations, the concept "altruism" requires a more precise meaning. A quantitative formulation is proposed here, based on the cost/benefit analysis of the altruist and of society at large. This formulation is applied in the analysis of the social dynamic working of behaviors that have been called "altruistic punishments", using the agent based computer model Sociodynamica. The simulations suggest that "altruistic punishment" on its own cannot maintain altruistic behaviors. "Altruistic behavior" is sustainable in the long term only if these behaviors trigger synergetic forces in society that eventually make them produce benefits to most individuals. The simulations suggest however that "altruistic punishment" may work as a "social investment", and is thus better called "decentralized social punishment". This behavior is very efficient in enforcing social norms. The efficiency of decentralized social punishment in enforcing norms was dependent on the type of labor structured of the virtual society. I conclude that what is called "altruistic punishment" emerges as a type of social investment that can evolve either through individual and/or group selection, as a successful device for changing or enforcing norms in a society. Social simulations will help us in better understanding the underlying dynamic working of such devices.     

Grooming reciprocation among female primates: a meta-analysis

The theory of reciprocal altruism offers an explanation for the evolution of altruistic behaviours among unrelated animals. Among primates, grooming is one of the most common altruistic behaviours. Primates have been suggested to exchange grooming both for itself and for rank-related benefits. While previous meta-analyses have shown that they direct their grooming up the hierarchy and exchange it for agonistic support, no comprehensive evaluation of grooming reciprocation has been made. Here we report on a meta-analysis of grooming reciprocation among female primates based on 48 social groups belonging to 22 different species and 12 genera. The results of this meta-analysis showed that female primates groom preferentially those group mates that groom them most. To the extent allowed by the availability of kinship data, this result holds true when controlling for maternal kinship. These results, together with previous findings, suggest that primates are indeed able to exchange grooming both for itself and for different rank-related benefits.     

Not only states but traits — Humans can identify permanent altruistic dispositions in 20 s

Humans behave altruistically in one-shot interactions under total anonymity. In search of explanations for such behavior, it has been argued that at least some individuals have a general tendency to behave altruistically independent of profitability. In fact, a stable altruistic trait would be adaptive if it were recognizable. Then, altruists could choose each other in order to retain benefits through mutual cooperation. Previous research has shown that individuals can predict the degree of altruistic behavior of strangers by reading signs of emotions evoked in significant social decisions. However, the identification of benevolent emotional states is no guarantee of the existence of permanent altruistic traits, though permanent traits are the preferable criterion for selection of good interaction partners. In this study, we tested whether individuals are able to identify altruistic traits. Judges watched 20-s silent video clips of unacquainted target persons and were asked to estimate the behavior of these target persons in a money-sharing task. As the videotapes of the target persons had been recorded in a setting unrelated to altruistic behavior, the judges could not base their estimates on situational cues related to the money-sharing task but instead had to draw on stable signals of altruism. Estimates were significantly better than chance, indicating that individuals can identify permanent altruistic traits in others. As this mechanism raises opportunities for selective interactions between altruists, our findings are discussed with respect to their relevance for explaining the evolution of altruism through assortment.     

Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection

From an evolutionary perspective, social behaviours are those which have fitness consequences for both the individual that performs the behaviour, and another individual. Over the last 43 years, a huge theoretical and empirical literature has developed on this topic. However, progress is often hindered by poor communication between scientists, with different people using the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing. This can obscure what is biologically important, and what is not. The potential for such semantic confusion is greatest with interdisciplinary research. Our aim here is to address issues of semantic confusion that have arisen with research on the problem of cooperation. In particular, we: (i) discuss confusion over the terms kin selection, mutualism, mutual benefit, cooperation, altruism, reciprocal altruism, weak altruism, altruistic punishment, strong reciprocity, group selection and direct fitness; (ii) emphasize the need to distinguish between proximate (mechanism) and ultimate (survival value) explanations of behaviours. We draw examples from all areas, but especially recent work on humans and microbes.     

Impact of the human egalitarian syndrome on darwinian selection mechanics

With nothing more than kin selection and reciprocal altruism theories to work with, the selection basis of human degrees of altruism and cooperation is often difficult to explain. However, during our prehistoric foraging phase, a highly stable egalitarian syndrome arose that had profound effects on Darwinian selection mechanics. The band's insistence on egalitarianism seriously damped male status rivalry and thereby reduced the intensity of selection within the group by reducing phenotypic variation at that level, while powerful social pressure to make decisions consensual at the band level had a similar effect. Consensual decisions also had another effect: they increased variation between groups because entire bands enacted their subsistence strategies collectively and the strategies varied between bands. By reducing the intensity of individual selection and boosting group effects, these behaviors provided a unique opportunity for altruistic genes to be established and maintained. In addition, the egalitarian custom of socially isolating or actively punishing lazy or cheating noncooperators reduced the free-rider problem. In combination, these phenotypic effects facilitated selection of altruistic genes in spite of some limited free riding. This selection scenario remained in place for thousands of generations, and the result was a shift in the balance of power between individual and group selection in favor of group effects. This new balance today is reflected in an ambivalent human nature that exhibits substantial altruism in addition to selfishness and nepotism.     

The co-evolution of individual behaviors and social institutions

We present agent-based simulations of a model of a deme-structured population in which group differences in social institutions are culturally transmitted and individual behaviors are genetically transmitted. We use a standard extended fitness accounting framework to identify the parameter space for which this co-evolutionary process generates high levels of group-beneficial behaviors. We show that intergroup conflicts may explain the evolutionary success of both: (a) altruistic forms of human sociality towards unrelated members of one's group; and (b) group-level institutional structures such as food sharing which have emerged and diffused repeatedly in a wide variety of ecologies during the course of human history. Group-beneficial behaviors may evolve if (a) they inflict sufficient fitness costs on outgroup individuals and (b) group-level institutions limit the individual fitness costs of these behaviors and thereby attenuate within-group selection against these behaviors. Thus, the evolutionary success of individually costly but group-beneficial behaviors in the relevant environments during the first 90,000 years of anatomically modern human existence may have been a consequence of distinctive human capacities in social institution building.     

Primate Nepotism: What is the Explanatory Value of Kin Selection?

Kin selection theory (KS) is widely invoked to account for the preferential treatment of kin—nepotism—in primate societies. Because this idea is so pervasive the role of KS is often unquestioned and optional mechanisms are often ignored. I first examine the potential role of some other nepotism-generating mechanisms by concentrating on the effect of the proximity correlate of matrilineal kinship. This correlate of kinship may bias the development of mutually selfish interactions among relatives—kin-biased mutualism—and that of reciprocally altruistic interactions—kin-biased reciprocal altruism—two mechanisms that have been given little weight compared to KS and whose impact on the evolution of nepotism is therefore unknown. However, these two options to KS cannot account for the existence of unilaterally altruistic interactions among kin, which provide, therefore, the best type of evidence to test KS. But such evidence is difficult to obtain because many behaviors considered altruistic may in fact be selfish, and because kin altruism is seldom unilateral; it is most often bilateral, as expected by reciprocal altruism theory. For these reasons, one should be extremely cautious before equating nepotism exclusively with KS. Next, I examine the predictions of KS regarding the deployment of altruism according to degree of kinship by considering, in addition to the variables of Hamilton's equation, the duration of behaviors, the size of kin classes and their differential availability. In general, altruism is expected to be allocated at a fairly constant rate among kin categories and to drop markedly past the degree of relatedness beyond which altruism is no more profitable. Very little data allow one to test conclusively this prediction, as well as some other significant predictions. Overall, there is ample evidence for the role of KS in shaping mother-offspring interactions in various areas. But the evidence for kin-selected altruism beyond the mother-offspring bond (r < 0.5), though qualitatively solid, is much less abundant. Kin altruism drops markedly beyond r = 0.25 (half-siblings and grandmother-grandoffspring dyads).     

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.     

Kin selection,social grooming and the removal of ectoparasites: A theoretical investigation

This paper considers how individuals should apportion their altruism among their relatives, with particular reference to social grooming in primates. It is concluded that there are no good reasons to expect an altruist to deploy its altruism among other individuals in proportion to its coefficients of relatedness to them. Various factors may cause an individual to be altruistic not just to its closest relative. One factor which is probably of widespread importance is when altruism reaches a point of diminishing returns, so that an increase in aid given is not accompanied by a proportional increase in benefit received. Quantitative predictions are made for social grooming with special reference to its possible function of ectoparasite removal.     

"Runaway" social evolution: reinforcing selection for inbreeding and altruism.

Kin selection theory predicts that altruistic behaviors, those that decrease the fitness of the individual performing the behavior but increase the fitness of the recipient, can increase in frequency if the individuals interacting are closely related. Several studies have shown that inbreeding therefore generally increases the effectiveness of kin selection when fitnesses are linear, additive functions of the number of altruists in the family, although with extreme forms of altruism, inbreeding can actually retard the evolution of altruism. These models assume that a constant proportion of the population mates at random and a constant proportion practices some form of inbreeding. In order to investigate the effect of inbreeding on the evolution of altruistic behavior when the mating structure is allowed to evolve, we examined a two-locus model by computer simulation of a diploid case and illustrated the important qualitative features by mathematical analysis of a haploid case. One locus determines an individual's propensity to perform altruistic social behavior and the second locus determines the probability that an individual will mate within its sibship. We assumed positive selection for altruism and no direct selection at the inbreeding locus. We observed that the altruistic allele and the inbreeding allele become positively associated, even when the initial conditions of the model assume independence between these loci. This linkage disequilibrium becomes established, because the altruistic allele increases more rapidly in the inbreeding segment of the population. This association subsequently results in indirect selection on the inbreeding locus. However, the dynamics of this model go beyond a simple "hitch-hiking" effect, because high levels of altruism lead to increased inbreeding, and high degrees of inbreeding accelerate the rate of change of the altruistic allele in the entire population. Thus, the dynamics of this model are similar to those of "runaway" sexual selection, with gene frequency change at the two loci interactively causing rapid evolutionary change.     

Primate reciprocity and its cognitive requirements

Humans can engage in relatively indiscriminate altruistic behaviors such as donating money to charities, giving blood, and volunteering to review scientific papers. They also live in societies characterized by examples of cooperation of unmatched complexity, such as organized armies, the cooperative building of infrastructures such as roads and railways, and tax‐paying, among others. (We exclude, of course, the “anonymous” societies of some social insects in which the animals themselves are not aware of the cooperative roles they play.) The emphasis on these unique aspects of our behavior 1 has sometimes distracted scientists from paying attention to the more common aspects of our daily lives, which share characteristics with those of our fellow primates. We invite friends for dinner, console others after a loss, intervene in ongoing fights, and even groom others. 2 - 4 These small acts of altruism, which constitute a large part of our daily social life, tend to resemble those of nonhuman primates.     

Group selection in plant populations

Summary Several mechanisms have been proposed for group selection, to account for the evolution of altruistic traits. One type, Neighbourhood models, suggests that individuals react with those immediately around them, but with no recognition mechanism. The organization of plant populations seems especially favorable for this type of selection. The possibility of Neighbourhood selection was investigated by simulating a plant population. It was possible for an altruistic trait to evolve, though only under restricted conditions. The main requirement was gene flow only by very restricted pollen dispersal, and a high benefit : cost ratio in the altruistic relationship. Under conditions favourable for such evolution, the starting frequency of the allele, the initial pattern, and the population size, had little effect. Inbreeding tended to prevent the increase of the altruism allele, though this depended on the mechanism of selfing. Known ecological features of plants are discussed that could be considered altruistic and hence require some form of group selection for their evolution, and whether the benefit : cost requirements are likely to be met. Neighbourhood models of group selection are a possibility in plant populations, and we therefore cannot exclude the possibility of altruism in plants. However, Neighbourhood selection is weak force, unlikely to be effective in the face of opposing individual selection. It may be more important as reinforcement of individual selection.     

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.     

The robustness of Hamilton's rule with inbreeding and dominance: kin selection and fixation probabilities under partial sib mating

Assessing the validity of Hamilton's rule when there is both inbreeding and dominance remains difficult. In this article, we provide a general method based on the direct fitness formalism to address this question. We then apply it to the question of the evolution of altruism among diploid full sibs and among haplodiploid sisters under inbreeding resulting from partial sib mating. In both cases, we find that the allele coding for altruism always increases in frequency if a condition of the form rb>c holds, where r depends on the rate of sib mating alpha but not on the frequency of the allele, its phenotypic effects, or the dominance of these effects. In both examples, we derive expressions for the probability of fixation of an allele coding for altruism; comparing these expressions with simulation results allows us to test various approximations often made in kin selection models (weak selection, large population size, large fecundity). Increasing alpha increases the probability of fixation of recessive altruistic alleles (h<1/2), while it can increase or decrease the probability of fixation of dominant altruistic alleles (h>1/2).