Cited by 604Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorLanguage and cultural evolution

Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism

Bowles, Samuel·2006·Science

Abstract

Humans behave altruistically in natural settings and experiments. A possible explanation—that groups with more altruists survive when groups compete—has long been judged untenable on empirical grounds for most species. But there have been no empirical tests of this explanation for humans. My empirical estimates show that genetic differences between early human groups are likely to have been great enough so that lethal intergroup competition could account for the evolution of altruism. Crucial to this process were distinctive human practices such as sharing food beyond the immediate family, monogamy, and other forms of reproductive leveling. These culturally transmitted practices presuppose advanced cognitive and linguistic capacities, possibly accounting for the distinctive forms of altruism found in our species.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1134829

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Cultural practices of reducing differences in reproductive success, e.g. by food sharing, could have led to genetic group differences strong enough to allow for group-selection, given intergroup competition and despite between-group migration.

    “Moreover, cultural practices of reducing differences in reproductive success, e.g. by food sharing, could have led to genetic group differences strong enough to allow for group-selection, given intergroup competition and despite of between-group migration (Bowles, 2006).”

    From Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality (2026) · cites this paper as Bowles, 2006

  • The efficiency of cultural transmission has not yet been the focus of these studies.

    “However, the efficiency of cultural transmission has not yet been the focus of these studies.”

    From Durkheim, Indoctrinability and the Moral Ambivalence of Human Sociality (2026) · cites this paper as Bowles, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowles, S.
Affiliations
University of Siena (IT)
Corresponding author
Bowles, Samuel
Venue
Science
Published
2006-12-08
Volume
314
Issue
5805
Pages
1569-1572
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2062414996
Cited by
604
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 57
FWCI
100.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
altruism, evolution of altruism, intergroup competition, food sharing, monogamy, cultural transmission, group selection
MeSH terms
Altruism, Archaeology, Climate, Competitive Behavior, Cultural Evolution, Biological Evolution, Genetics, Population, Group Processes, Humans, Mathematics, Models, Theoretical, Population Dynamics, Reproduction, Selection, Genetic, Genetic Variation, Violence, Warfare

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