Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:44:43.634Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eleven mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

MICHAEL A. ZAGGL
MICHAEL A. ZAGGL*
Affiliation:
TUM School of Management, Technische Universität München, Arcisstr. 21, 80333, Munich, Germany
*
*Email: michael.zaggl@tum.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Cooperation is one of the basic elements of social life. It is essential for emergent social phenomena, such as the formation of families, groups, and societies. However, evolutionary forces counter cooperation. The trait of supporting others is dominated by selfish behavior. In the last few decades scientists, in particular biologists, achieved extraordinary progress regarding the question of how cooperation is possible despite of evolutionary forces. This produced an enormous amount of literature. This paper identifies and reviews the known solutions explaining cooperation under evolutionary forces. Using bibliometric methods in combination with extant review articles and traditional reviewing of original literature, it is possible to isolate 11 mechanisms of cooperation under the conditions of evolution. Developing a categorization of the mechanisms according to shared characteristics establishes a fundamental framework for institutional and mechanism design activities. Implications for future research paths are identified, in particular for the mechanism of indirect reciprocity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 197 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2013 

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

Abramson, G. and Kuperman, M. (2001), ‘Social Games in a Social Network’, Physical Review E, 63 (3): 030901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, R. D. (1987), The Biology of Moral Systems, Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1984), ‘The Evolution of Eusociality’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15: 165–189.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1962), ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention’, in NB of Economic Research (ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 609–626.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. (1971), Essays in the Theory of Risk-Bearing, Chicago, IL: Markham.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. (1985), ‘Repeated Games’, in Feiwel, G. R. (ed.), Issues in Contemporary Microeconomics and Welfare, London: Macmillan, pp. 209–242.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, W. D. (1981), ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’, Science, 211 (4489): 1390–1396.Google Scholar
Bergmüller, R., Johnstone, R. A., Russell, A. F., and Bshary, R. (2007), ‘Integrating Cooperative Breeding into Theoretical Concepts of Cooperation’, Behavioural Processes, 76 (2): 61–72.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C. (2002), ‘Evolution of Social Behavior: Individual and Group Selection’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (2): 67–88.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E. and Ockenfels, A. (2000), ‘ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition’, American Economic Review, 90 (1): 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., and Richerson, P. J. (2003), ‘The Evolution of Altruistic Punishment’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100 (6): 3531–3535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1989), ‘The Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity’, Social Networks, 11 (3): 213–236.Google Scholar
Brandt, H. and Sigmund, K. (2004), ‘The Logic of Reprobation: Assessment and Action Rules for Indirect Reciprocation’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231 (4): 475–486.Google Scholar
Chen, C., Ibekwe-Sanjuan, F., and Hou, J. (2010), ‘The Structure and Dynamics of Cocitation Clusters: A Multiple-Perspective Cocitation Analysis’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61 (7): 1386–1409.Google Scholar
Choi, J. K. and Bowles, S. (2007), ‘The Coevolution of Parochial Altruism and War’, Science, 318 (5850): 636–640.Google Scholar
Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., and Moore, C. (2004), ‘Finding Community Structure in Very Large Networks’, Physical Review E, 70 (6): 066111.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. (2009), ‘Cooperation between Non-Kin in Animal Societies’, Nature, 462 (7269): 51–57.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol. I, London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1872), The Origin of Species, New York: Collier & Son.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2006 [1976]), The Selfish Gene, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D., and Nowak, M. A. (2008), ‘Winners Don't Punish’, Nature, 452 (7185): 348–351.Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G. (2004), ‘A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity’, Games and Economic Behavior, 47 (2): 268–298.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997a), Cooperation among Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997b), ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’, BioScience, 47 (6): 355–362.Google Scholar
Dugatkin, L. A. and Mesterton-Gibbons, M. (1996), ‘Cooperation among Unrelated Individuals: Reciprocal Altruism, By-Product Mutualism and Group Selection in Fishes’, BioSystems, 37(1–2): 19–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durrett, R. and Levin, S. (1994), ‘The Importance of Being Discrete (and Spatial)’, Theoretical Population Biology, 46 (3): 363–394.Google Scholar
Ebel, H. and Bornholdt, S. (2002), ‘Coevolutionary Games on Networks’, Physical Review E, 66 (5): 056118.Google Scholar
Engelmann, D. and Fischbacher, U. (2009), ‘Indirect Reciprocity and Strategic Reputation Building in an Experimental Helping Game’, Games and Economic Behavior, 67 (2): 399–407.Google Scholar
Euler, H. A. and Weitzel, B. (1996), ‘Discriminative Grandparental Solicitude as Reproductive Strategy’, Human Nature, 7 (1): 39–59.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2004), ‘Social Norms and Human Cooperation’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (4): 185–190.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation, and the Enforcement of Social Norms’, Human Nature, 13 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2002), ‘Altruistic Punishment in Humans’, Nature, 415 (6868): 137–140.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Gächter, S., and Kirchsteiger, G. (1997), ‘Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence’, Econometrica, 65 (4): 833–860.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., Kirchler, E., Weichbold, A., and Gächter, S. (1998), ‘When Social Norms Overpower Competition: Gift Exchange in Experimental Labor Markets’, Journal of Labor Economics, 16 (2): 324–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. (1999), ‘A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (3): 817–868.Google Scholar
Gintis, H. (2000), ‘Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206 (2): 169–179.Google Scholar
Gintis, H., Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., and Fehr, E. (2008), ‘Strong Reciprocity and the Roots of Human Morality’, Social Justice Research, 21 (2): 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gmür, M. (2003), ‘Co-Citation Analysis and the Search for Invisible Colleges: A Methodological Evaluation’, Scientometrics, 57 (1): 27–57.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990), ‘Biological Signals as Handicaps’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144 (4): 517–546.Google Scholar
Gürerk, O., Irlenbusch, B., and Rockenbach, B. (2006), ‘The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions’, Science, 312 (5770): 108–112.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964a), ‘The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. I’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W. D. (1964b), ‘The Genetical Evolution of Social Behaviour. II’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1): 17–52.Google Scholar
Hassell, M. P., Comins, H. N., and May, R. M. (1994), ‘Species Coexistence and Self-Organizing Spatial Dynamics’, Nature, 370 (6487): 290–292.Google Scholar
Hauert, C. and Doebeli, M. (2004), ‘Spatial Structure often Inhibits the Evolution of Cooperation in the Snowdrift Game’, Nature, 428 (6983): 643–646.Google Scholar
Hauert, C., Monte, S., Hofbauer, J., and Sigmund, K. (2002a), ‘Replicator Dynamics for Optional Public Good Games’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218 (2): 187–194.Google Scholar
Hauert, C., Monte, S., Hofbauer, J., and Sigmund, K. (2002b), ‘Volunteering as Red Queen Mechanism for Cooperation in Public Goods Games’, Science, 296 (5570): 1129–1132.Google Scholar
Hauert, C., Traulsen, A., Nowak, M. A., and Sigmund, K. (2007), ‘Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment’, Science, 316 (5833): 1905–1907.Google Scholar
Hooper, P. L., Kaplan, H. S., and Boone, J. L. (2010), ‘A Theory of Leadership in Human Cooperative Groups’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 265 (4): 633–646.Google Scholar
Jarneving, B. (2005), ‘A Comparison of Two Bibliometric Methods for Mapping of the Research Front’, Scientometrics, 65 (2): 245–263.Google Scholar
Jarvis, J. U. M. (1981), ‘Eusociality in a Mammal: Cooperative Breeding in Naked Mole-Rat Colonies’, Science, 212 (4494): 571–573.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. (1986), ‘The Group Selection of Variola Minor in the Americas: An Anthroponootic Analogue for the Myxomatosis Epizootic in Australia’, Medical Hypotheses, 19 (4): 341–344.Google Scholar
Keller, L. and Ross, K. G. (1998), ‘Selfish Genes: A Green Beard in the Red Fire Ant’, Nature, 394 (6693): 573–575.Google Scholar
Killingback, T., Bieri, J., and Flatt, T. (2006), ‘Evolution in Group-Structured Populations can Resolve the Tragedy of the Commons’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273 (1593): 1477–1481.Google ScholarPubMed
Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996), ‘What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning’, Organization Science, 7 (5): 502–518.Google Scholar
Laker, D. R. and Williams, M. L. (2003), ‘Nepotism's Effect on Employee Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment: An Empirical Study’, International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 3 (3): 191–202.Google Scholar
Lehmann, L. and Keller, L. (2006), ‘The Evolution of Cooperation and Altruism: A General Framework and a Classification of Models’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19 (5): 1365–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leimar, O. and Hammerstein, P. (2001), ‘Evolution of Cooperation through Indirect Reciprocity’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268 (1468): 745–753.Google Scholar
Lieberman, E., Hauert, C., and Nowak, M. A. (2005), ‘Evolutionary Dynamics on Graphs’, Nature, 433 (7023): 312–316.Google Scholar
Luo, L., Chakraborty, N., and Sycara, K. (2011), ‘An Evolutionary Game-Theoretic Model for Ethno-Religious Conflicts between Two Groups’, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 17 (4): 379–401.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1964), ‘Group Selection and Kin Selection’, Nature, 201 (4924): 1145–1147.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982), Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1991), ‘Honest Signalling: The Philip Sidney Game’, Animal Behaviour, 42 (6): 1034–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Bakker, T. C. M., and Krambeck, H. J. (2001), ‘Cooperation through Indirect Reciprocity: Image Scoring or Standing Strategy?’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 268 (1484): 2495–2501.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., and Krambeck, H. J. (2002), ‘Donors to Charity Gain in both Indirect Reciprocity and Political Reputation’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 269 (1494): 881–883.Google Scholar
Molander, P. (1985), ‘The Optimal Level of Generosity in a Selfish, Uncertain Environment’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29 (4): 611–618.Google Scholar
Nakamaru, M., Matsuda, H., and Iwasa, Y. (1997), ‘The Evolution of Cooperation in a Lattice-Structured Population’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 184 (1): 65–81.Google Scholar
Nakamaru, M., Nogami, H., and Iwasa, Y. (1998), ‘Score-Dependent Fertility Model for the Evolution of Cooperation in a Lattice’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194 (1): 101–124.Google Scholar
Nathanson, C. G., Tarnita, C. E., and Nowak, M. A. (2009), ‘Calculating Evolutionary Dynamics in Structured Populations’, PLoS Computational Biology, 5 (12): e1000615.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. (2006), ‘Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation’, Science, 314 (5805): 1560–1563.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Bonhoeffer, S., and May, R. M. (1994), ‘More Spatial Games’, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 4 (1): 33–56.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and May, R. M. (1992), ‘Evolutionary Games and Spatial Chaos’, Nature, 359 (6398): 826–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and May, R. M. (1993), ‘The Spatial Dilemmas of Evolution’, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 3 (1): 35–78.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Sasaki, A., Taylor, C., and Fudenberg, D. (2004), ‘Emergence of Cooperation and Evolutionary Stability in Finite Populations’, Nature, 428 (6983): 646–650.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (1993), ‘A Strategy of Win-Stay, Lose-Shift that Outperforms Tit-For-Tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game’, Nature, 364 (6432): 56–58.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (1998a), ‘The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194 (4): 561–574.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (1998b), ‘Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring’, Nature, 393 (6685): 573–577.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (2005), ‘Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity’, Nature, 437 (7063): 1291–1298.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (2007), ‘How Populations Cohere: Five Rules for Cooperation’, in May, R. M. and McLean, A. R. (eds.), Theoretical Ecology: Principles and Applications, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., and Wilson, E. O. (2010), ‘The Evolution of Eusociality’, Nature, 466 (7310): 1057–1062.Google Scholar
Ockenfels, P. (1993), ‘Cooperation in Prisoners’ Dilemma: An Evolutionary Approach’, European Journal of Political Economy, 9 (4): 576–579.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., and Nowak, M. A. (2006), ‘A Simple Rule for the Evolution of Cooperation on Graphs and Social Networks’, Nature, 441 (7092): 502–505.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H. and Iwasa, Y. (2004), ‘How Should We Define Goodness? Reputation Dynamics in Indirect Reciprocity’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231 (1): 107–120.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., and Nowak, M. A. (2009), ‘Indirect Reciprocity Provides Only a Narrow Margin of Efficiency for Costly Punishment’, Nature, 457 (7225): 79–82.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H. and Nowak, M. A. (2006), ‘Evolutionary Games on Cycles’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273 (1598): 2249–2256.Google Scholar
Orbell, J. M. and Dawes, R. M. (1993), ‘Cooperators’ Advantage, and the Option of Not Playing the Game’, American Sociological Review, 58 (6): 787–800.Google Scholar
Osareh, F. (1996), ‘Bibliometrics, Citation Analysis and Co-Citation Analysis: A Review of Literature I’, Libri, 46 (3): 149–158.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1993), ‘Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics’, American Economic Review, 83 (5): 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Reeve, H. K., Westneat, D. F., Noon, W. A., Sherman, P. W., and Aquadro, C. F. (1990), ‘DNA “Fingerprinting” Reveals High Levels of Inbreeding in Colonies of the Eusocial Naked Mole-Rat’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 87 (7): 2496–2500.Google Scholar
Rockenbach, B. and Milinski, M. (2006), ‘The Efficient Interaction of Indirect Reciprocity and Costly Punishment’, Nature, 444 (7120): 718–723.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. (1979), ‘Equilibrium in Supergames with the Overtaking Criterion’, Journal of Economic Theory, 21 (1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Rushton, J. P., Russell, R. J. H., and Wells, P. A. (1984), ‘Genetic Similarity Theory: Beyond Kin Selection’, Behavior Genetics, 14 (3): 179–193.Google Scholar
Santos, F. C. and Pacheco, J. M. (2005), ‘Scale-Free Networks Provide a Unifying Framework for the Emergence of Cooperation’, Physical Review Letters, 95 (9): 098104.Google Scholar
Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M., and Lenaerts, T. (2006a), ‘Cooperation Prevails When Individuals Adjust Their Social Ties’, PLoS Computational Biology, 2 (10): 1284–1291.Google Scholar
Santos, F. C., Rodrigues, J. F., and Pacheco, J. M. (2006b), ‘Graph Topology Plays a Determinant Role in the Evolution of Cooperation’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 273 (1582): 51–55.Google Scholar
Semmann, D., Krambeck, H. J., and Milinski, M. (2003), ‘Volunteering Leads to Rock-Paper-Scissors Dynamics in a Public Goods Game’, Nature, 425 (6956): 390–393.Google Scholar
Seymour, B., Singer, T., and Dolan, R. (2007), ‘The Neurobiology of Punishment’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8 (4): 300–311.Google Scholar
Sigmund, K. (2010), The Calculus of Selfishness, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sigmund, K. (2012), ‘Moral Assessment in Indirect Reciprocity’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299(Special Issue: Evolution of Cooperation): 25–30.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. and Pemantle, R. (2000), ‘A Dynamic Model of Social Network Formation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97 (16): 9340–9346.Google Scholar
Small, H. (1980), ‘Co-Citation Context Analysis and the Structure of Paradigms’, Journal of Documentation, 36 (3): 183–196.Google Scholar
Spence, M. (1973), ‘Job Market Signaling’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87 (3): 355–374.Google Scholar
Stevens, J. R., Cushman, F. A., and Hauser, M. D. (2005), ‘Evolving the Psychological Mechanisms for Cooperation’, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36: 499–518.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. (1986), ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior’, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W. G. (eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
Tarnita, C. E., Antal, T., Ohtsuki, H., and Nowak, M. A. (2009), ‘Evolutionary Dynamics in Set Structured Populations’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (21): 8601–8604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, C. and Nowak, M. A. (2009), ‘How to Evolve Cooperation’, in Levin, S. A. (ed.), Games, Groups, and the Global Good, Berlin: Springer, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. J., Balph, D. F., and Balph, M. H. (1990), ‘The Evolution of Alarm Calling: A Cost-Benefit Analysis’, Animal Behaviour, 39 (5): 860–868.Google Scholar
Thorne, B. L. (1997), ‘Evolution of Eusociality in Termites’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28: 27–54.Google Scholar
Traulsen, A. and Nowak, M. A. (2006), ‘Evolution of Cooperation by Multilevel Selection’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103 (29): 10952–10955.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971), ‘The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism’, Quarterly Review of Biology, 46 (1): 35–57.Google Scholar
Uchida, S. and Sigmund, K. (2010), ‘The Competition of Assessment Rules for Indirect Reciprocity’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 263 (1): 13–19.Google Scholar
van den Bergh, J. C. and Gowdy, J. M. (2009), ‘A Group Selection Perspective on Economic Behavior, Institutions and Organizations’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class, New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S., and Wallin, M. W. (2012), ‘Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development’, MIS Quarterly, 36 (2): 649–676.Google Scholar
Wade, M. J. (1978), ‘A Critical Review of the Models of Group Selection’, Quarterly Review of Biology, 53 (2): 101–114.Google Scholar
West, S. A., Griffin, A. S., and Gardner, A. (2006), ‘Social Semantics: Altruism, Cooperation, Mutualism, Strong Reciprocity and Group Selection’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20 (2): 415–432.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1975), ‘A Theory of Group Selection’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72 (1): 143–146.Google Scholar
Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1962), Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Zaggl, M. A. and Troitzsch, K. G. (2012), ‘Indirect Reciprocity in Social Organizations: Replication of Image Scoring and Extension to Networks’, in Koch, A. (ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Social Simulation Association Conference, Salzburg: Universität Salzburg, pp. 291–296.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. (1975), ‘Mate Selection: A Selection for a Handicap’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53 (1):205–214.Google Scholar