IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/thpobi/v156y2024icp131-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of spite versus evolution of altruism through a disbandment mechanism

Author

Listed:
  • Kurokawa, Shun

Abstract

Altruism and spite are costly to the actor, making their evolution unlikely without specific mechanisms. Nonetheless, both altruistic and spiteful behaviors are present in individuals, which suggests the existence of an underlying mechanism that drives their evolution. If altruistic individuals are more likely to be recipients of altruism than non-altruistic individuals, then altruism can be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if spiteful individuals are less likely to be recipients of spite than non-spiteful individuals, then spite can be favored by natural selection. Spite is altruism's evil twin, ugly sister of altruism, or a shady relative of altruism. In some mechanisms, such as repeated interactions, if altruism is favored by natural selection, then spite is also favored by natural selection. However, there has been limited investigation into whether both behaviors evolve to the same extent. In this study, we focus on the mechanism by which individuals choose to keep or stop the interaction according to the opponent's behavior. Using the evolutionary game theory, we investigate the evolution of altruism and spite under this mechanism. Our model revealed that the evolution of spite is less likely than the evolution of altruism.

Suggested Citation

  • Kurokawa, Shun, 2024. "Evolution of spite versus evolution of altruism through a disbandment mechanism," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 131-147.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:thpobi:v:156:y:2024:i:c:p:131-147
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2024.02.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580924000170
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tpb.2024.02.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zachary Fulker & Patrick Forber & Rory Smead & Christoph Riedl, 2021. "Spite is contagious in dynamic networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    2. Kurokawa, Shun & Ihara, Yasuo, 2013. "Evolution of social behavior in finite populations: A payoff transformation in general n-player games and its implications," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    4. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    5. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521555838 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kurokawa, Shun, 2019. "How memory cost, switching cost, and payoff non-linearity affect the evolution of persistence," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 341(C), pages 174-192.
    2. Wang, Chengjiang & Wang, Li & Wang, Juan & Sun, Shiwen & Xia, Chengyi, 2017. "Inferring the reputation enhances the cooperation in the public goods game on interdependent lattices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 293(C), pages 18-29.
    3. Frauke von Bieberstein & Andrea Essl & Kathrin Friedrich, 2021. "Empathy: A clue for prosocialty and driver of indirect reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    5. Deng, Zhenghong & Wang, Shengnan & Gu, Zhiyang & Xu, Juwei & Song, Qun, 2017. "Heterogeneous preference selection promotes cooperation in spatial prisoners’ dilemma game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 20-23.
    6. Liang, Pinghan & Meng, Juanjuan, 2016. "Favor transmission and social image concern: An experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 14-21.
    7. Lv, Shaojie & Wang, Xianjia, 2020. "The impact of heterogeneous investments on the evolution of cooperation in public goods game with exclusion," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 372(C).
    8. Shen, Chen & Li, Xiaoping & Shi, Lei & Deng, Zhenghong, 2017. "Asymmetric evaluation promotes cooperation in network population," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 474(C), pages 391-397.
    9. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    10. Marco Casari, 2002. "Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 542.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    11. Yue Song & Yun Huang & Yunqing Shi & Fenglin Zang, 2023. "How Prospective Direct and Indirect Reciprocity Influence 4- to 6-Year-Old’s Sharing," Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(2), pages 1-9, November.
    12. Casari, Marco, 2008. "Markets in equilibrium with firms out of equilibrium: A simulation study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 261-276, February.
    13. Bigoni, Maria & Camera, Gabriele & Casari, Marco, 2020. "Money is more than memory," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 99-115.
    14. Lu, Wen & Liang, Shu, 2023. "Direct emotional interaction in prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    15. Hu, Menglong & Wang, Juan & Kong, Lingcong & An, Kang & Bi, Tao & Guo, Baohong & Dong, Enzeng, 2015. "Incorporating the information from direct and indirect neighbors into fitness evaluation enhances the cooperation in the social dilemmas," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 47-52.
    16. Gaudeul, Alexia & Keser, Claudia & Müller, Stephan, 2021. "The evolution of morals under indirect reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 251-277.
    17. Arefin, Md. Rajib & Tanimoto, Jun, 2024. "Coupling injunctive social norms with evolutionary games," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 466(C).
    18. Gary Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "A stress test of fairness measures in models of social utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(4), pages 957-982, June.
    19. Genki Ichinose & Masaya Saito & Shinsuke Suzuki, 2013. "Collective Chasing Behavior between Cooperators and Defectors in the Spatial Prisoner’s Dilemma," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    20. András Németh & Károly Takács, 2007. "The Evolution of Altruism in Spatially Structured Populations," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 10(3), pages 1-4.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:thpobi:v:156:y:2024:i:c:p:131-147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.