International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 583–589 | Cite as

The preferences of Homo Moralis are unstable under evolving assortativity

Article

Abstract

Differing degrees of assortativity in matching can be expected to have both genetic and cultural determinants. When assortativity is subject to evolution, the main result of Alger and Weibull (Econometrica 81:2269–2302 2013) on the evolution of stable other-regarding preferences does not hold. Instead, both non-Nash and Pareto inefficient behavior are evolutionarily unstable.

Keywords

Evolution Moral values Assortative matching 

JEL Classification

C73 

References

  1. Alger I, Weibull JW (2013) Homo moralis-preference evolution under incomplete information and assortative matching. Econometrica 81:2269–2302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bearhop S, Fiedler W, Furness RW, Votier SC, Waldron S, Newton J, Bowen GJ, Berthold P, Farnsworth K (2005) Assortative mating as a mechanism for rapid evolution of a migratory divide. Science 310:502–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bomze IM, Weibull JW (1995) Does neutral stability imply Lyapunov stability? Games Econ Behav 11:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cara MARd, Barton NH, Kirkpatrick M (2008) A model for the evolution of assortative mating. Am Naturalist 171:580–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cashdan E (2001) Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: a crosscultural study. Curr Anthropol 42:760–765Google Scholar
  6. Choi JK, Bowles S (2007) The coevolution of parochial altruism and war. Science 318:636–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyson-Hudson R, Smith EA (1978) Human territoriality: an ecological reassessment. Am Anthropol 80:21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fry DP, Söderberg P (2013) Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science 341:270–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kant I (1785) Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals, translation by Abbott, Thomas Kingsmill, 1829–1913. Project Gutenberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. López-Sepulcre A, Kokko H (2005) Territorial defense, territory size, and population regulation. Am Naturalist 166:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Matessi C, Gimelfarb A, Gavrilets S (2002) Long-term buildup of reproductive isolation promoted by disruptive selection: how far does it go? Selection 2:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maynard Smith J (1982) Evol Theor Games. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:15–18Google Scholar
  15. Otto SP, Servedio MR, Nuismer SL (2008) Frequency-dependent selection and the evolution of assortative mating. Genetics 179:2091–2112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pennings PS, Kopp M, Meszéna G, Dieckmann U, Hermisson J (2008) An analytically tractable model for competitive speciation. Am Naturalist 171:E44–E71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Servedio MR (2010) Limits to the evolution of assortative mating by female choice under restricted gene flow. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological SciencesGoogle Scholar
  18. Taylor PD, Jonker LB (1978) Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosci 40:145–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson DS, Dugatkin LA (1997) Group selection and assortative interactions. Am Naturalist 149:336–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsUniversity of SydneyNew South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations