Signals and Spite in Fluctuating Populations

Rory Smead 1  and Patrick Forber 2
  • 1 Northeastern University, , Boston, United States of America
  • 2 Tufts University, , Medford, United States of America

Abstract

Spite (in the biological or evolutionary sense) is behavior that harms others at a cost to the actor. The presence of spite in human and animal populations presents an evolutionary puzzle. Recent work has suggested small populations and pre-play signaling can have a significant effect on the evolution of spite. Here, we use computational methods to explore these factors in fluctuating populations that may go extinct. We find that the presence of spite can make a population significantly more likely to go extinct, but that this does not preclude the possibility of spite reliably evolving. Additionally, we find that the stochastic effects of small fluctuating populations allow for the evolution and predominance of signal-mediated conditional spite across a wide range of conditions. These results suggest that directed harm, even if costly, can play a significant early role in the evolution of social behaviors and this provides a possible origin for punishment.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alexander, Jason McKenzie. The Structural Evolution of Morality. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

  • Barrett, Jeffrey A. and Brian Skyrms. “Self-assembling games.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 68:2 (2017), 329-353.

  • Borges, Jorge Luis. Collected fictions. Penguin Books New York, 1998.

  • Boyd, Robert, Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and Peter J. Richerson. “The evolution of altruistic punishment.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100:6 (2003), 3531-3535.

  • Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. “Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups.” Ethology and sociobiology. 13:3 (1992), 171-195.

  • Forber, P and R Smead. “The evolution of fairness through spite.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281:1780 (2014), 20132439.

  • Forber, Patrick, and Rory Smead. “An evolutionary paradox for prosocial behavior.” The Journal of Philosophy. 111:3 (2014), 151-166.

  • Forber, Patrick, and Rory Smead. “The Evolution of Spite, Recognition, and Morality.” Philosophy of Science. 83:5 (2016), 884-896.

  • West, Stuart A., and Andy Gardner. “Altruism, spite, and greenbeards.” Science. 327:5971 (2010), 1341-1344.

  • Grim, Patrick, Robert Rosenberger, Adam Rosenfeld, Brian Anderson, and Robb E. Eason. “How simulations fail.” Synthese. 190:12 (2013), 2367-2390.

  • Hamilton, William D. “The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I.” Journal of Theoretical Biology. 7:1 (1964),1-16.

  • Hamilton, William, D. “Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model.” Nature. 228:5277 (1970), 1218-1220.

  • Hamilton, W D. “Selection of selfish and altruistic behavior in some extreme models.” In Narrow Roads of Gene Land: The Collected Papers of W. D. Hamilton Volume 1: Evolution of Social Behaviour, 198–227. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

  • Hawlena, Hadas, Farrah Bashey, and Curtis M. Lively. “The evolution of spite: Population structure and bacteriocin-mediated antagonism in two natural populations of Xenorhabdus bacteria.” Evolution. 64:11 (2010), 3198-3204.

  • Huttegger, Simon M. and Kevin J. S. Zollman “Methodology in biological game theory. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 64:3 (2003), 637-658.

  • Inglis, R. Fredrik, Andy Gardner, Pierre Cornelis, and Angus Buckling. “Spite and virulence in the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106:14 (2009), 5703-5707.

  • Jensen, Keith. “Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 365:1553 (2010), 2635-2650.

  • Lehmann, Laurent, Marcus W. Feldman, and François Rousset. “On the evolution of harming and recognition in finite panmictic and infinite structured populations.” Evolution. 63:11 (2009). 2896-2913.

  • Marlowe, Frank W., J. Colette Berbesque, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Michael Gurven, and David Tracer. “The ‘spiteful’ origins of human cooperation.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278:1715 (2010). 2159-2164.

  • Matthewson, John, and Michael Weisberg. “The structure of tradeoffs in model building.” Synthese. 170:1 (2009). 169-190.

  • McAuliffe, Katherine, Peter R. Blake, and Felix Warneken. “Children reject inequity out of spite.” Biology letters. 10:12 (2014). 20140743.

  • Nakao, Hisashi, and Edouard Machery. “The evolution of punishment.” Biology & Philosophy. 27:6 (2012), 833-850.

  • Robinson, Scott K. “Anti-social and social behaviour of adolescent Yellow-rumped Caciques (Icterinae: Cacicus cela).” Animal Behaviour. 36:5 (1988), 1482-1495.

  • Robson, Arthur J. “Efficiency in evolutionary games: Darwin, Nash and the secret handshake.” Journal of theoretical Biology. 144:3 (1990), 379-396.

  • Skyrms, Brian. Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

  • Skyrms, Brian. The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

  • Skyrms, Brian. “Evolution and the social contract.” The Tanner lecture on human values, University of Michigan, 2007.

  • Skyrms, Brian. Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford University Press, 2010.

  • Smead, Rory. “The evolution of cooperation in the centipede game with finite populations.” Philosophy of Science. 75:2 (2008), 157-177.

  • Smead, Rory, and Patrick Forber. “The coevolution of recognition and social behavior.” Scientific reports. 6 (2016). 25813.

  • Smead, Rory, and Patrick Forber. “The evolutionary dynamics of spite in finite populations.” Evolution. 67:3 (2013), 698-707. Sterelny, Kim. The evolved apprentice. MIT press, 2012.

  • West, Stuart A., and Andy Gardner. “Altruism, spite, and greenbeards.” Science. 327:5971 (2010), 1341-1344.

  • Zollman, Kevin JS. “Talking to neighbors: The evolution of regional meaning.” Philosophy of Science. 72:1 (2005), 69-85.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Open Philosophy is an international Open Access, peer-reviewed academic journal covering all areas of philosophy. The objective of Open Philosophy is to foster free exchange of ideas and provide an appropriate platform for presenting, discussing and disseminating new concepts, current trends, theoretical developments and research findings related to the broadest philosophical spectrum.

Search