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. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    3. Wang, Xiaofeng & Chen, Xiaojie & Gao, Jia & Wang, Long, 2013. "Reputation-based mutual selection rule promotes cooperation in spatial threshold public goods games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 181-187.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Charness, Gary & Du, Ninghua & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness reputations in an investment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 361-375, June.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Engelmann, Dirk & Fischbacher, Urs, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 399-407, November.
    12. Andrew W. Bausch, 2014. "Evolving intergroup cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 369-393, December.
    13. Suzuki, Shinsuke & Akiyama, Eizo, 2008. "Evolutionary stability of first-order-information indirect reciprocity in sizable groups," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 426-436.
    14. Molina, José Alberto & Ferrer, Alfredo & Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Gracia-Lazaro, Carlos & Moreno, Yamir & Sanchez, Angel, 2016. "The Effect of Kinship on Intergenerational Cooperation: A Lab Experiment with Three Generations," IZA Discussion Papers 9842, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. 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.
    16. 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).
    17. 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.
    18. Mirko Duradoni & Mario Paolucci & Franco Bagnoli & Andrea Guazzini, 2018. "Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    19. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel ockenfels, 2015. "Conflict resolution vs. conflict escalation in online markets," Discussion Papers 2015-19, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    20. 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).

    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.