The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Group Selection, Altruism, and Structured-Deme Models
Abstract
Group selection is defined as a process by which traits advantageous to the group are favored because of the positive association of individuals exhibiting the traits. In addition, group selection acts to protect this positive association against cheats. This definition, unlike those in current use, incorporates the essential features of the traditional verbal arguments by excluding the effects of individual selection and incorporating the problem of cheating. Kin selection is considered an example of group selection in which the "groups" are associations of relatives and in which special mechanisms, such as individual recognition, maintain the integrity of the associations. The "groups" of group selection are quite different from the trait groups of structured-deme models, so that structured-deme models can be used to demonstrate individual or group selection. By analyzing the models in terms of group neighbors, it has been shown that whenever trait groups are formed at random only individual selection can act. The same results have emerged when there are no groups, only a continuous random array of individuals, and the analysis is in terms of neighborhoods. Individuals exhibiting traits that can evolve under these conditions of neighborhood selection often impart some benefit to their neighbors. Such traits are said to be benevolent. Altruism involves a loss of individual fitness and can evolve only by group selection. The evolution of altruism can be demonstrated in structured-deme models, provided that the altruists exhibit positive association and can occur whether the population forms isolated groups or a continuous array. Structured-deme models are a valuable tool for analyzing local interactions and the resulting neighborhood selection; it is important to note, however, that if a model incorporates isolated trait groups, then within-group comparisons are entirely inappropriate for evaluating the fate of genotypes. Comparing genotypes under conditions of equivalent neighborhoods not only gives a direct indication of relative fitnesses, but also provides the unexpected bonus of making the analysis technically much easier.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
Wilson, D. S. (1975) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.72.1.143 · Cited by 1,259
Cited by
Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1992) · Ethology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90032-y · Cited by 1,482
Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0
Szathmáry, E. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1421398112 · Cited by 415
The evolution of indirect reciprocity
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1989) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(89)90003-8 · Cited by 398
Alternative formulations of multilevel selection
Damuth, J., & Heisler, I. L. (1988) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00647962 · Cited by 324
Reciprocity and the emergence of reputation
Pollock, G., & Dugatkin, L. A. (1992) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80765-9 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Nunney, L.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1985-08
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 212-230
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2018945684
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Group Selection, Altruism, and Structured-Deme Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/284410
- The paper
- Nunney, L. (1985). Group Selection, Altruism, and Structured-Deme Models. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/284410
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.