, Volume 80, Issue 6, pp 1175–1189 | Cite as

Genetic Models in Evolutionary Game Theory: The Evolution of Altruism

  • Hannah RubinEmail author
Original Article


While prior models of the evolution of altruism have assumed that organisms reproduce asexually, this paper presents a model of the evolution of altruism for sexually reproducing organisms using Hardy–Weinberg dynamics. In this model, the presence of reciprocal altruists allows the population to evolve to a stable polymorphic population where the majority of organisms are altruistic. Further, adding stochasticity leads to even larger numbers of altruists, while adding stochasticity to an analogous asexual model leads to more selfish organisms. The contrast between these outcomes demonstrates why it may be important to pay attention to the underlying genetics of a population.


Genetic Model Finite Population Replicator Dynamic Evolutionary Game Theory Reciprocal Altruist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would like to thank Simon Huttegger, Brian Skyrms, Justin Bruner, Cailin O’Connor audiences at GIRLS 2014 and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank Zac Ernst, Paul Weirich, André Ariew, and Philip Robbins for their help on a previous version of this paper.


  1. Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation (2nd ed., pp. 27–69). New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Cressman, R. (1992). The stability concept of evolutionary game theory (pp. 58–59). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dugatkin, L. A. (1991). Dynamics of the tit-for-tat strategy during predator inspection in the guppy (poecilia-reticula). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 29(2), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Krama, T., Vrublevska, J., Freeberg, T. M., Kullberg, C., Rantalaand, M. J., & Krams, I. (2012). You mob my owl, I’ll mob yours: Birds play tit-for-tat game. Scientific Reports, 2, 1–3. doi: 10.1038/srep00800.
  5. Moran, P. A. P. (1962). The statistical processes of evolutionary theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  6. Nowak, M. A. (2006a). 5 Rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nowak, M. A. (2006b). Evolutionary dynamics of cooperation. In Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Madrid (pp. 1523–1540).Google Scholar
  8. Peyton, Y. H., & Foster, D. (1991). Cooperation in the short and in the long run. Games and Economic Behavior, 3, 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sandholm, W. H., Dokumaci, E., & Franchetti, F. (2012). Dynamo: Diagrams for evolutionary game dynamics.
  10. Skyrms, B. (1994). Darwin meets the logic of decision: Correlation in evolutionary game theory. Philosophy of Science, 61(4), 503–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, J. M. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games (pp. 41–43). Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior (pp. 1–194). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tennant, N. (1999). Sex and the evolution of fair dealing. Philosophy of Science, 66(3), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations