No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Partner selection, coordination games, and group selection
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 February 2013
Abstract
The process of partner selection reflects ethnographic realities where cooperative rewards obtain that would otherwise be lost to loners. Baumard et al. neglect frequency-dependent processes exemplified by games of coordination. Such games can produce multiple equilibria that may or may not include fair outcomes. Additional, group-selection processes are required to produce the outcomes predicted by the models.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013
References
Alvard, M. (2001) Mutualistic hunting. In: The early human diet: The role of meat, ed. Stanford, C. & Bunn, H., pp. 261–78. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alvard, M. (n.d.) Testing hypotheses about cooperation, conflict, and punishment in the artisanal FAD (fish aggregating device) fishery of the Commonwealth of Dominica.Google Scholar
Alvard, M. & Nolin, D. (2002) Rousseau's whale hunt? Coordination among big game hunters. Current Anthropology 43(4):533–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C. (2002) Evolution of social behavior: Individual and group selection. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(2):67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1990) Group selection among alternative evolutionarily stable strategies. Journal of Theoretical Biology 145(3):331–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2002) Group beneficial norms can spread rapidly in a structured population. Journal of Theoretical Biology 215(3):287–96.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2010) Transmission coupling mechanisms: Cultural group selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B 365:3787–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ensminger, J. (1997) Transaction costs and Islam: Explaining conversion in Africa. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics/Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 153(1):4–29.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. A. & Doebeli, M. (2006) How altruism evolves: Assortment and synergy. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19(5):1389–93.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. A. & Doebeli, M. (2009) A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276(1654):13–19.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2004) Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 53:3–35.Google Scholar
Letcher, J. A. & Doebeli, M. (2006) How altruism evolves: Assortment and synergy. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19(5):1389–93.Google Scholar
McElreath, R. E. A. (2008) Individual decision making and the evolutionary roots of institutions. In: Better than conscious? Decision making, the human mind, and implications for institutions, ed. Singer, C. E. W., pp. 325–42. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E. & Antal, T. (2010) Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 365(1537):19–30.Google Scholar
Pepper, J. W. & Smuts, B. B. (2002) A mechanism for the evolution of altruism among nonkin: Positive assortment through environmental feedback. American Naturalist 160(2):205–13.Google Scholar
Rankin, D. J. & Taborsky, M. (2009) Assortment and the evolution of generalized reciprocity. Evolution 63(7):1913–22.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. & Wilson, D. (1998) Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (2006) Reciprocal altruism: 30 years later. In: Cooperation in primates and humans: Mechanisms and evolution, ed. Kappeler, P. & van Schaik, C., pp. 67–83. Springer.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. & Dugatkin, L. A. (1997) Group selection and assortative interactions. American Naturalist 149(2):336–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. S. & Sober, E. (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17(4):585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, H. P. (2003) The power of norms. In: Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation, ed. Hammerstein, P., pp. 389–99. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Target article
A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice
Related commentaries (28)
A strange(r) analysis of morality: A consideration of relational context and the broader literature is needed
Bargaining power and the evolution of un-fair, non-mutualistic moral norms
Baumard et al.'s moral markets lack market dynamics
Beyond economic games: A mutualistic approach to the rest of moral life
Biological evolution and behavioral evolution: Two approaches to altruism
Can mutualistic morality predict how individuals deal with benefits they did not deserve?
Competitive morality
Cooperation and fairness depend on self-regulation
Disentangling the sense of ownership from the sense of fairness
Does market competition explain fairness?
Ego function of morality and developing tensions that are “within”
Evidence for partner choice in toddlers: Considering the breadth of other-oriented behaviours
From mutualism to moral transcendence
From partner choice to equity – and beyond?
Heterogeneity in fairness views: A challenge to the mutualistic approach?
Intertemporal bargaining predicts moral behavior, even in anonymous, one-shot economic games1
Modeling justice as a natural phenomenon
More to morality than mutualism: Consistent contributors exist and they can inspire costly generosity in others
Mutualism is only a part of human morality
Non-mutualistic morality
Not all mutualism is fair, and not all fairness is mutualistic
Partner selection, coordination games, and group selection
Sense of fairness: Not by itself a moral sense and not a foundation of a lot of morality
The emotional shape of our moral life: Anger-related emotions and mutualistic anthropology
The paradox of the missing function: How similar is moral mutualism to biofunctional understanding?
You can't have it both ways: What is the relation between morality and fairness?
Your theory of the evolution of morality depends upon your theory of morality
“Fair” outcomes without morality in cleaner wrasse mutualism
Author response
Partner choice, fairness, and the extension of morality