Biology & Philosophy

, 26:517 | Cite as

Efficient social contracts and group selection



We consider the Stag Hunt in terms of Maynard Smith’s famous Haystack model. In the Stag Hunt, contrary to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, there is a cooperative equilibrium besides the equilibrium where every player defects. This implies that in the Haystack model, where a population is partitioned into groups, groups playing the cooperative equilibrium tend to grow faster than those at the non-cooperative equilibrium. We determine under what conditions this leads to the takeover of the population by cooperators. Moreover, we compare our results to the case of an unstructured population and to the case of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Finally, we point to some implications our findings have for three distinct ideas: Ken Binmore’s group selection argument in favor of the evolution of efficient social contracts, Sewall Wright’s Shifting Balance theory, and the equilibrium selection problem of game theory.


Cooperation Equilibrium selection Group selection Haystack model Prisoner’s Dilemma Shifting balance Stag Hunt 


  1. Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calcott B (2008) The other cooperation problem: generating benefit. Biol Philos 23:179–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gavrilets S (2004) Fitness landscapes and the origin of species. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  4. Kandori M, Mailath GJ, Rob R (1993) Learning, mutation, and long run equilibria in games. Econometrica 61:15–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Maynard Smith J (1964) Group selection and kin selection. Nature 201:1145–1147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Maynard Smith J (1976) Group selection quarterly review of biology 51:277–283Google Scholar
  7. Maynard Smith J, Price G (1973) The logic of animal conflict. Nature 246:1145–1147Google Scholar
  8. Okasha S (2009) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Samuelson L (1998) Evolutionary games and equilibrium selection. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Skyrms B (2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Sober E, Wilson DS (1998) Unto others. The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  12. Wright S (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In: Proceedings of the sixth international congress of genetics 1:356–366Google Scholar
  13. Young HP (1993) The evolution of conventions. Econometrica 61:57–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and ReligionNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations