Price’s Hierarchical Equation and the Notion of Group Fitness
It is usually assumed that, when applied to cases with regularly reshuffled, non-overlapping groups whose characters are defined as the average character of their individual members (such as David Sloan Wilson’s well-known trait-group model for the evolution of altruism), Price’s hierarchical equation tracks changes in the average value of individual-level traits and uses a notion of group fitness defined in terms of the number of individuals that groups produce. I argue that this is not necessarily so, and that Price’s equation can be used for estimating the magnitude of the influence of certain factors on the change in the average value of group-level traits and that the notion of group fitness used therein can be defined in terms of groups making more groups.
KeywordsPrice’s equation Group fitness Group selection Multilevel selection Altruism
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS—UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-2653.
- Brandon, R. N. (1990). Adaptation and environment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
- Frank, S. (1998). Foundations of social evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Kerr, B. (2009). Theoretical and experimental approaches to the evolution of altruism and the levels of selection. In T. Garland Jr. & M. R. Rose (Eds.), Experimental evolution. Concepts, methods, and applications of selection experiments (pp. 585–630). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (2015). Replies to commentators on Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards? Philosophical Studies, 172(3), 829–840.Google Scholar
- Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, D. S. (2006). Levels of selection: An alternative to individualism in biology and the human sciences. In E. Sober (Ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary biology (pp. 63–75). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar