Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Reply

Reply to Myrseth and Wollbrant: Our model is consistent with altruism, and helps to explain its evolution

Adam Bear and David G. Rand
PNAS May 3, 2016 113 (18) E2473; first published April 18, 2016; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603854113
Adam Bear
aDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David G. Rand
aDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511;
bDepartment of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511;
cSchool of Management, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: david.rand@yale.edu

This article has a Letter. Please see:

  • Models inconsistent with altruism cannot explain the evolution of human cooperation - April 18, 2016

See related content:

  • Evolution of dual-process cooperation
    - Jan 11, 2016
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Myrseth and Wollbrandt’s critique (1) of our paper “Intuition, deliberation and the evolution of cooperation” (2) is incorrect. They claim that our model “precludes the survival of altruistic individuals” and thus “precludes altruism in equilibrium” (where they define “altruism” as cooperating even in one-shot games).

This statement is false. On the contrary, a major focus of our paper is precisely to demonstrate how our model can support one-shot game cooperation (“altruism”) in equilibrium. We show the conditions necessary for the dual-process cooperator (DC) strategy profile to be an equilibrium, and a key feature of DC is that it cooperates in one-shot games [with probability c(1 − p)/d, where c is the cost of cooperation, p is the probability of interactions with future consequences, and d is the maximum cost of deliberation]. See, for example, figure 2D of our paper (2), which demonstrates the high level of one-shot cooperation that can be achieved in equilibrium in our model. Furthermore, the model’s predictions are supported by human behavioral experiments showing that altruism in one-shot games is affected by exposure to social environments that promote or inhibit cooperation (3, 4), and is undermined by deliberation (5⇓–7).

We also note that our model includes assortment, the fundamental evolutionary force that promotes unconditional (“altruistic”) cooperation in one-shot games. Assortment has been presented as an explanation for, among other things, the evolution of “strong reciprocity” (8), which Myrseth and Wollbrandt use as an example of the kind of altruism they (incorrectly) believe our model precludes. Even when assortment is sufficiently high for purely altruistic individuals who always cooperate (even in one-shot interactions) to dominate the population, our calculations show that it continues to be true that “evolution never favors strategies for which deliberation increases cooperation.” Conceptually, this is because forces that directly make one-shot cooperation successful also necessarily make repeated cooperation successful, and, because the same behavior is optimal in both one-shot and repeated settings, there is no benefit to deliberating to differentiate between them—instead, unconditional intuitive cooperation is favored.

In sum, one of our paper’s main contributions (2) is to show how evolution could favor such “altruistic” cooperation, providing an ultimate explanation for the proximate psychological mechanisms that Myrseth and Wollbrandt mention (many of which are based on intuitive processes, such as prosocial emotions). Our model thus explains the very features of human behavior that Myrseth and Wollbrandt claim it ignores.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: david.rand{at}yale.edu.
  • Author contributions: A.B. and D.G.R. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Myrseth KOR,
    2. Wollbrant CE
    (2016) Models inconsistent with altruism cannot explain the evolution of human cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:E2472
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Bear A,
    2. Rand DG
    (2016) Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(4):936–941
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Peysakhovich A,
    2. Rand DG
    (2016) Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Manage Sci 62(3):631–647
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Stagnaro MN,
    2. Arechar AA,
    3. Rand DG
    (2016) From good institutions to good norms: Top-down incentives to cooperate foster prosociality but not norm enforcement. SSRN. Available at papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2720585. Accessed March 29, 2016
    .
  5. ↵
    1. Rand DG,
    2. Greene JD,
    3. Nowak MA
    (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489(7416):427–430
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Rand DG, et al.
    (2014) Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nat Commun 5:3677
    .
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Rand DG,
    2. Brescoll VL,
    3. Everett JAC,
    4. Capraro V,
    5. Barcelo H
    (2016) Social heuristics and social roles: Intuition favors altruism for women but not for men. J Exp Psychol Gen 145(4):389–396
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. ↵
    1. Bowles S,
    2. Gintis H
    (2011) A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, NJ)
    .
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply to Myrseth and Wollbrant: Our model is consistent with altruism, and helps to explain its evolution
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Our model is consistent with and explains altruism
Adam Bear, David G. Rand
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2016, 113 (18) E2473; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603854113

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Our model is consistent with and explains altruism
Adam Bear, David G. Rand
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences May 2016, 113 (18) E2473; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1603854113
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 113 (18)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Social Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Biological Sciences
  • Evolution

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Large piece of gold
News Feature: Tracing gold's cosmic origins
Astronomers thought they’d finally figured out where gold and other heavy elements in the universe came from. In light of recent results, they’re not so sure.
Image credit: Science Source/Tom McHugh.
Dancers in red dresses
Journal Club: Friends appear to share patterns of brain activity
Researchers are still trying to understand what causes this strong correlation between neural and social networks.
Image credit: Shutterstock/Yeongsik Im.
Yellow emoticons
Learning the language of facial expressions
Aleix Martinez explains why facial expressions often are not accurate indicators of emotion.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490