Social semantics: how useful has group selection been?
Open accessAbstract
In our social semantics review ( J. Evol. Biol. , 2007, 415–432), we discussed some of the misconceptions and sources of confusion associated with group selection. Wilson (2007, this issue) claims that we made three errors regarding group selection. Here, we aim to expand upon the relevant points from our review in order to refute this claim. The last 45 years of research provide clear evidence of the relative use of the kin and group selection approaches. Kin selection methodologies are more tractable, allowing the construction of models that can be applied more easily to specific biological examples, including those chosen by Wilson to illustrate the utility of the group selection approach. In contrast, the group selection approach is not only less useful, but also appears to frequently have negative consequences by fostering confusion that leads to wasted effort. More generally, kin selection theory allows the construction of a unified conceptual overview that can be applied across all taxa, whereas there is no formal theory of group selection.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The concept of 'group selection' is problematic.
“While I have sympathies with this proposal, several researchers have noted that the concept of 'group selection' is problematic (West et al. 2007;Pinker 2012).”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as West et al. 2007
The concept of group selection is problematic when it comes to traits threatening an individual's fitness.
“I noted that the concept of 'group selection' is problematic when it comes to traits threatening an individual's fitness (West et al. 2007;Pinker 2012)”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as West et al. 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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 · see citing works
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475 · cited 3× · see citing works
“…is commonly made that group selection is distinct from kin selection (e.g. Wilson, 1975; Colwell, 1981; Sober & Wilson, 1998; Gintis, 2000; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Gintis et al., 2003; Peck, 2006; Kreft, 2005; Wilson & Hölldobler, 2005; Nowak, 2006; Traulsen & Nowak, 2006; Taylor &…”
BackgroundResultSocial semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.
WEST, S. A., GRIFFIN, A. S., & GARDNER, A. (2007) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x · Cited by 1,889 · see citing works
Self-citationWilson, D. S. (1975) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.72.1.143 · Cited by 1,259 · see citing works
Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria
Griffin, A. S., West, S. A., & Buckling, A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02744 · Cited by 1,104 · see citing works
Self-citationHamilton, W. D. (2001) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198503361.001.0001 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Boomsma, J.J. & Ratnieks, F.L.W. 1996. Paternity in eusocial Hymenoptera. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 351: 947-975.
- Bourke, A.F.G. & Franks, N.R. 1995. Social Evolution in Ants. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Burt, A. & Trivers, R. 2006. Genes in Conflict: The Biology of Selfish genetic Elements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
- Charnov, E.L. 1982. The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon, Oxford.
- Frank, S.A. 1992. A kin selection model for the evolution of virulence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 250: 195-197.
- Frank, S.A. 1994. Kin selection and virulence in the evolution of protocells and parasites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 258: 153-161.
- Frank, S.A. 1998. Foundations of Social Evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Gandon, S. & Rousset, F. 1999. Evolution of stepping-stone dispersal rates. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266: 2507-2513.
- Gardner, A. & Foster, K.R. In press. The evolution and ecology of cooperation -history and concepts. In: Ecology of social evolution (J. Korb & J. Heinze, eds). Springer.
- Gardner, A., West, S.A. & Buckling, A. 2004. Bacteriocins, spite and virulence. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 1529-2535.
- Gilbert, O.M., Foster, K.R., Mehdiabadi, N.J., Strassman, J.E. & Queller, D.C. 2007. High relatedness maintains multicellular cooperation in a social amoeba by controlling cheater mutants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104: 8913-8917.
- Grafen, A. 1984. Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. In: Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach (J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies, eds), pp. 62-84. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
- Grafen, A. 1985. A geometric view of relatedness. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 2: 28-89.
- Hamilton, W.D. 1971. Selection of selfish and altruistic behav- iour in some extreme models. In: Man and Beast: Comparative Social Behavior (J. F. Eisenberg & W. S. Dillon, eds), pp. 57-91. Smithsonian Press, Washington.
- Hamilton, W.D. 1975. Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. In: Biosocial Anthropology (R. Fox, ed), pp. 133-155. Wiley, New York.
- Hamilton, W.D. 1996. Narrow Roads of Gene Land: I Evolution of Social Behaviour. W.H. Freeman, Oxford.
- Lehmann, L., Keller, L., West, S.A. & Roze, D. 2007a. Group selection and kin selection: two concepts but one process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104: 6736-6739.
- Lehmann, L., Keller, L. & Sumpter, D.J. In press. Inclusive fitness explains the evolution of helping and harming behav- iours on graphs. J. Evol. Biol.
- Maynard Smith, J. 1983. Models of evolution. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 219: 315-325.
- Mock, D.W. & Parker, G.A. 1997. The Evolution of Sibling Rivalry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Nee, S., West, S.A. & Read, A.F. 2002. Inbreeding and parasite sex ratios. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269: 755-760.
- Okasha, S. 2006. Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Peck, J.R. 2006. Altruism, sex, and inbreeding when the genotype-phenotype map is additive. Journal of Theoretical Biology 239: 130-140.
- Rousset, F. 2004. Genetic Structure and Selection in Subdivided Populations. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Sober, E. & Wilson, D.S. 1998. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Harvard University Press, Harvard.
- Traulsen, A. & Nowak, M.A. 2006. Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103: 10952- 10955.
- Wallace, B. 1968. Soft selection, hard selection, kin selection and group selection. In: Population Biology and Evolution (R. C. Lewontin, ed), pp. 87-108. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
- West, S.A., Smith, T.G. & Read, A.F. 2000. Sex allocation and population structure in apicomplexan (Protozoa) parasites. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267: 257-263.
- Williams, G.C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
- Wilson, D.S. 2007. Social semantics: towards a genuine plural- ism in the study of social behaviour. J. Evol. Biol. doi: 10.1111/ j.1420-9101.2007.01396.x · DOI
- Wilson, E.O. & Ho ¨lldobler, B. 2005. Eusociality: origin and consequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102: 13367-13371.
- Wright, S. 1945. Tempo and mode in evolution: a critical review. Ecology 26: 415-419.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cooperation between non-kin in animal societies
Clutton-Brock, T. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08366 · Cited by 951 · see citing works
What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias?
Peters, U. (2022) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
- Authors
- WEST, S. A., GRIFFIN, A. S., & GARDNER, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- WEST, S. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Evolutionary Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-11-23
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 374-385
- ISSN
- 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
- 1420-9101
- OpenAlex
- W2171807615
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Leverhulme Trust
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
- Keywords
- group selection, kin selection, social semantics, evolutionary theory, social evolution
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
