Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:48:18.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social selection is a powerful explanation for prosociality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Randolph M. Nesse
Randolph M. Nesse*
Affiliation:
Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501. [email protected]://RandolphNesse.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultural group selection helps explain human cooperation, but social selection offers a complementary, more powerful explanation. Just as sexual selection shapes extreme traits that increase matings, social selection shapes extreme traits that make individuals preferred social partners. Self-interested partner choices create strong and possibly runaway selection for prosocial traits, without requiring group selection, kin selection, or reciprocity.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e47
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aktipis, C. A. (2004) Know when to walk away: Contingent movement and the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 231(2):249–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flinn, M. V. & Alexander, R. D. (2007) Runaway social selection in human evolution. In: The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies, ed. Gangestad, S. W. & Simpson, J. A., pp. 249–55. Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Frank, S. A. (2006) Social selection. In: Evolutionary genetics: Concepts and case studies, ed. Fox, C. W. & Wolf, J. B., pp. 350–63. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, B. E. & Montgomerie, R. (2012) Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 367(1600):2266–73. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0012.Google Scholar
Nesse, R. M. (2009) Runaway social selection for displays of partner value and altruism. In: The moral brain: Essays on the evolutionary and neuroscientific aspects of morality, ed. Verplaetse, J., Schrijver, J. De, Vanneste, S. & Braeckman, J., pp. 211–32. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Nesse, R. M. (2010) Social selection and the origins of culture. In: Evolution, culture, and the human mind, ed. Schaller, M., Heine, S. J., Norenzayan, A., Yamagishi, T. & Kameda, T., pp. 137–50. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Noë, R., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M. & Hammerstein, P. (2001) Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Y. (1996) Social selection and the evolution of animal signals. Evolution 50:512–23.Google Scholar
Tobias, J. A., Montgomerie, R. & Lyon, B. E. (2012) The evolution of female ornaments and weaponry: Social selection, sexual selection and ecological competition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 367(1600):2274–93. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0280.Google Scholar
West, S. A., Griffin, A. S. & Gardner, A. (2007) Social semantics: Altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20(2):415–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1979) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123(4):222–34.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 58(2):155–83.Google Scholar
Wolf, J. B., Brodie, E. D., III & Moore, A. J. (1999) Interacting phenotypes and the evolutionary process. II. Selection resulting from social interactions. American Naturalist 153:254–66.Google Scholar