Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 205–231 | Cite as

On the Evolution of Behavioral Heterogeneity in Individuals and Populations

  • Carl T. Bergstrom
  • Peter Godfrey-Smith


A wide range of ecological and evolutionary models predict variety in phenotype or behavior when a population is at equilibrium. This heterogeneity can be realized in different ways. For example, it can be realized through a complex population of individuals exhibiting different simple behaviors, or through a simple population of individuals exhibiting complex, varying behaviors. In some theoretical frameworks these different realizations are treated as equivalent, but natural selection distinguishes between these two alternatives in subtle ways. By investigating an increasingly complex series of models, from a simple fluctuating selection model up to a finite population hawk/dove game, we explore the selective pressures which discriminate between pure strategists, mixed at the population level, and individual mixed strategists. Our analysis reveals some important limitations to the “ESS” framework often employed to investigate the evolution of complex behavior.

game theory ESS mixed strategy polymorphism variation in behavior finite populations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clark, A.B.: 1978, 'Sex Ratio and Local Resource Competition in a Prosimian Primate', Science 201, 163–165.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper, W.S. and Kaplan, R.H.: 1982, 'Adaptive “Coin-Flipping” a Decision-theoretic Examination of Natural Selection for Random Individual Variation', Journal of Theoretical Biology 94, 135–151.Google Scholar
  3. Dempster, E.R.: 1955, 'Maintenance of genetic hetergeneity', Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology 20, 25–32.Google Scholar
  4. Gillespie, J.: 1973, 'Polymorphism in random environments', Theoretical Population Biology 4, 193–195.Google Scholar
  5. Gillespie, J.H.: 1991, The Causes of Molecular Evolution, Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Godfray, H.C.J. and Parker, G.A.: 1992, 'Sibling competition, parent-offspring conflict, and clutch size', Animal Behaviour 43, 473–490.Google Scholar
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P.: 1996, Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Haldane, J.B.S. and Jayakar, S.D.: 1963, 'Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction', Journal of Genetics 58, 237–242.Google Scholar
  9. Hartl, D.L. and Cook, R.D.: 1973, 'Balanced polymorphisms of quasineutral alleles', Theoretical Population Biology 4, 163–172.Google Scholar
  10. Hines, W.G.S.: 1980, 'Strategy stability in complex populations', Journal of Applied Probability 17, 600–610.Google Scholar
  11. Hines, W.G.S.: 1987, 'Evolutionary Stable Strategies: A Review of Basic Theory', Theoretical Population Biology 31, 195–272.Google Scholar
  12. Hines, W.G.S. and Anfossi, D.: 1990, 'A discussion of evolutionarily stable strategies', in S. Lessard (ed.), Mathematical and Statistical Developments of Evolutionary Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 229–267.Google Scholar
  13. Karlin, S. and Lieberman, U.: 1974, 'Random temporal variation in selection intensities: case of large population size', Theoretical Population Biology 6, 355–382.Google Scholar
  14. Levins, R.: 1968, Evolution in Changing Environments, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith, J.: 1982, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Maynard Smith, J.: 1988, 'Can a mixed strategy be stable in a finite population?', Journal of Theoretical Biology 130, 247–251.Google Scholar
  17. Maynard Smith, J. and Price, G.R.: 1973, 'The logic of animal conflict', Nature 246, 15–18.Google Scholar
  18. Orzack, S.H. and Sober, E.: 1994, 'Optimality models and the test of adaptationism', American Naturalist 143(3), 361–380.Google Scholar
  19. Riley, J.G.: 1979, 'Evolutionary equilibrium strategies', Journal of Theoretical Biology 76, 109–123.Google Scholar
  20. Schaffer, M.E.: 1988, 'Evolutionarily Stable Strategies for a Finite Population and a Variable Contest Size', Journal of Theoretical Biology 132, 469–478.Google Scholar
  21. Seger J. and Brockmann, J.: 1987, 'What is bet-hedging?', Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 4, 182–211.Google Scholar
  22. Sober, E.: 1993, Philosophy of Biology, Dimensions of Philosophy Series. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, B.: 1984, 'Evolutionary Stability: States and Strategies', Theoretical Population Biology 26, 49–67.Google Scholar
  24. Verner, J.: 1965, 'Selection for sex ratio', American Naturalist 94, 419.Google Scholar
  25. Vickery, W.L.: 1988, 'Reply to Maynard Smith', Journal of Theoretical Biology 132, 375–378.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, D.S. and Yoshimura, J.: 1994, 'On the coexistence of specialists and generalists', American Naturalist 144(4), 692–707.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl T. Bergstrom
    • 1
  • Peter Godfrey-Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations