ChapterPDF Available
Garcia, R. A. (2017). Kin Selection. (V. Zeigler-Hill, & T. K. Shackelford, Eds.) Encyclopedia
of Personality and Individual Differences, pp. 1-2. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1541-1
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-28099-8_1541-1
Title of entry: Kin Selection
Synonyms: kin altruism; inclusive fitness
Definition: Kin Selection is a view of natural selection that incorporates the role of shared genes
in an organism’s decision making.
Introduction:
If an organism’s primary objective is the propagation of its own genes, why would such a selfish
organism perform actions that benefit its competitors incurring a cost to its own reproductive
success, while increasing the reproductive success of others? These altruistic behaviors, while
seemingly in direct opposition to natural selection, are often quite rational and in accordance
with the essence of natural selection. This is particularly the case when one considers that the
competitors that often reap the benefits of these acts are close relatives (e.g., brothers, sisters,
sons, daughters, cousins). Relatives share a more-than-average amount of the same genes, and
while the sharing is not 100% (except in the case of monozygotic ‘identical’ twins), by helping a
relative’s reproductive success, you are indirectly increasing the likelihood that some of your
shared genes are represented in the next generation. This expansion of the principles of natural
selection to include the effect of actions on the reproductive success of relatives and one’s own
direct reproductive success (collectively known as inclusive fitness) is known as kin selection.
Main Text:
The term first coined by Maynard Smith in 1964, kin selection is an extension of natural
selection that incorporates how indirect sources of reproductive success (fitness of relatives)
affect an organism’s actions to optimize its own fitness. Kin selection has been discussed as early
as Darwin’s The Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) with much of its popularity coming from
Hamilton’s mathematical treatment (Hamilton, 1964). Hamilton’s rule captures the essence of
kin selection; kin selection should occur when:
𝑟𝐵 > 𝐶,
where
r
= the genetic relatedness between the actor and the beneficiary,
B
= the fitness benefit to
the beneficiary, and
C
= the fitness cost to the actor. In other words, kin selection should occur
when the indirect fitness gain of one outcome (
rB
) is likely to be greater than the direct fitness
gain of the alternative outcome (
C
). In honeybees (Apis mellifera), for example, workers will
attack intruders to defend their colony, even at the expense of their own life. This is, in part, due
to the fact that the colony is comprised of the worker’s relatives; the indirect reproductive benefit
(
rB
) outweighs the reproductive cost (
C
). While conceptually powerful, it is difficult to quantify
the costs and benefits that result from different decision outcomes. Thus, the first successful
instance of empirical support for Hamilton’s rule to date involving wild animals was not carried
out until 2010 (Gorrell, et al., 2010).
Kin selection is unlikely to occur unless a means of determining genetic relatedness exists. Two
mechanisms proposed by Hamilton (1964) are: kin recognition and viscous populations. In the
case of kin recognition, specialized kin-detection brain processes evolve over time to allow
individuals to discriminate among other members of the same species. As a molecular
assessment of genetic relatedness is evolutionarily novel, this mechanism uses the high
correspondence between phenotype and genotype to infer the degree of relatedness between the
self and other members of the species. Viscous populations, on the other hand, use the
correspondence between geographic dispersal and genetic relatedness. In groups with little
geographic dispersal, it can be reasonably inferred that those closer in space are more genetically
related than those farther away. While both mechanisms were proposed by Hamilton, the role of
kin recognition has since been downplayed in favor of a viscous populations explanation
(Hamilton, 1987).
While kin selection appears to present a strong explanation of altruistic behavior, its strictest
form has largely been debunked outside of a narrow set of situations. A softer form of kin
selection depicts shared genetic relatedness as secondary to developmental cues that mediate the
development of social bonds and altruistic behaviors (Holland, 2012). The multilevel selection
model, on the other hand, presents an alternate framing of kin selection away from an
individual’s inclusive fitness to a group’s fitness – stating that selection of altruistic behaviors
happens as a consequence of increased group fitness due to cooperation (Nowak, Tarnita, &
Wilson, 2010).
Conclusion: As noted by Nowak, Tarnita, & Wilson (2010): “Inclusive fitness theory is not a
simplification over the standard approach. It is an alternative accounting method…” Kin
selection is a way of framing natural selection to incorporate the role relatives play in an
organism’s decision-making process. Kin selection is said to occur when an organism reaps the
benefit of indirect fitness gains rather than those of direct fitness gains. That is, kin selection
occurs when an organism selfishly sacrifices its personal reproductive success to increase the
reproductive fitness of its relatives.
Cross-references: reciprocal altruism; social cooperation; social selection; sociobiology
References:
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.
Gorrell, J. C., McAdam, A. G., Coltman, D. W., Humphries, M. M., Boutin, S., Jamieson, C.
(2010). Adopting kin enhances inclusive fitness in asocial red squirrels. Nature
Communications, 1(22), 1-4.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 7(1), 1-16.
Hamilton, W. D. (1987). Discriminating nepotism: Expectable, common and overlooked. In D.
J. C. Fletcher & C. D. Michener (Eds.), Kin Recognition in Animals. New York: Wiley.
Holland, M. (2012). Social bonding and nurture kinship: Compatibility between cultural and
biological approaches. North Charleston: Createspace Press.
Nowak, M., Tarnita, C., & Wilson, E. O. (2010). The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466,
1057-1062.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Book
Full-text available
Resolving a decades long divide between what are often held to be incommensurate paradigms, Social Bonding & Nurture Kinship unites cultural and biological approaches to social life and kinship. The synthesis is non-reductive, respecting the core tenets of both paradigms, and also incorporates psychological attachment theory into the account. Praised by adherents of both perspectives, the work provides an exhaustive survey of the theoretical debates and empirical findings across a wide array of disciplines, providing students of social behaviour and kinship with a rich and comprehensive resource. This work is a powerful example of how social and physical sciences can unite on equal terms, without the danger of one being subsumed by the other. Both approaches emerge stronger as a result.
Article
Full-text available
Orphaned animals benefit from being adopted, but it is unclear why an adopting parent should incur the costs of rearing extra young. Such altruistic parental behaviour could be favoured if it is directed towards kin and the inclusive benefits of adoption exceed the costs. Here, we report the occurrence of adoption (five occurrences among 2,230 litters over 19 years) in asocial red squirrels (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Adoptions were always between kin, while orphans without nearby kin were never adopted. Adoptions were confined exclusively to circumstances in which the benefits to the adopted juvenile (b), discounted by the degree of relatedness between the surrogate and the orphan (r), exceeded the fitness costs of adding an extra juvenile to her litter (c), as predicted by Hamilton's rule (rb>c) for the evolution of altruism. By focusing on adoption in an asocial species, our study provides a clear test of Hamilton's rule that explains the persistence of occasional altruism in a natural mammal population.
Article
Full-text available
Eusociality, in which some individuals reduce their own lifetime reproductive potential to raise the offspring of others, underlies the most advanced forms of social organization and the ecologically dominant role of social insects and humans. For the past four decades kin selection theory, based on the concept of inclusive fitness, has been the major theoretical attempt to explain the evolution of eusociality. Here we show the limitations of this approach. We argue that standard natural selection theory in the context of precise models of population structure represents a simpler and superior approach, allows the evaluation of multiple competing hypotheses, and provides an exact framework for interpreting empirical observations.
Article
• In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration. Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c, as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved) • In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration. Naturalists continually refer to external conditions, such as climate, food, &c, as the only possible cause of variation. In one very limited sense, as we shall hereafter see, this may be true; but it is preposterous to attribute to mere external conditions, the structure, for instance, of the woodpecker, with its feet, tail, beak, and tongue, so admirably adapted to catch insects under the bark of trees. In the case of the misseltoe, which draws its nourishment from certain trees, which has seeds that must be transported by certain birds, and which has flowers with separate sexes absolutely requiring the agency of certain insects to bring pollen from one flower to the other, it is equally preposterous to account for the structure of this parasite, with its relations to several distinct organic beings, by the effects of external conditions, or of habit, or of the volition of the plant itself. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Includes index.; At foot of title page: The right of Translation is reserved.; Advertisements on p. [1]-32 (3rd group); Freeman, R.B. Darwin, 112, variant b.; Electronic reproduction Canberra, A.C.T. : National Library of Australia, 2009.; One of the earliest known surviving copies of the first ed. to arrive in Australia.; The first edition of Origin was published on November 24, 1859. This copy is believed to have arrived in Australia by March 10, 1860.; Inscriptions on front end paper: "Parramatta N.S.W. William Woolls, March 17/60, H.S. Mort, 2/10/00. 1250 copies printed with the misprint "species" on page 20. 2 sets of last half on Murray's General list of works, pp 17-32 bear story on page 184". This copy has been extensively annotated by Woolls. Some of the annotations are faded and rubbed.; Includes book plate of previous owners, H.S. Mort and Robert L. Usinger.; Condition: Some foxing to text, a good copy in original publisher's blindstamped green cloth, spine lettered and decorated in gilt, binder's ticket of Edmonds & Remnants on rear paste-down, minor repairs to joints, a little worn. The binding is in Freeman's variant b. In this copy there is an unrecorded anomaly in Murray's advertisements at the end.The 'c' gathering has been duplicated in error replacing the 'b' gathering, so that the pagination of the advertisements runs 17-32 ;17-32. On the origin of species Preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life