Kin selection: fact and fiction

By A. Griffin, Stuart A. West. 2002

359 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10044f3327a015f08b111385131e4775db676131

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Mediating mutualisms: farm management practices and evolutionary changes in symbiont co-operation (2002, neutral): “2001; West, Pen & Griffin 2002; Griffin & West 2002).”
Social semantics: how useful has group selection been? (2008, background): “…emerges from cooperatively breeding vertebrates, where both direct and indirect fitness benefits of helping can be important (Clutton-Brock, 2002; Griffin & West, 2002), with the importance of indirect fitness benefits varying across species, as predicted by Hamilton’s rule (Griffin & West,…”
Emergence of Spatial Structure in Cell Groups and the Evolution of Cooperation (2010, background): “By promoting interaction between individuals of the same genotype, the spontaneous segregation of different genetic lineages in space may also influence social evolution within cell groups [23,24].”
A genetic analysis of breeding success in the cooperative meerkat (Suricata suricatta) (2003, background): “A major task for future research is to determine the relative importance of immediate and future fitness consequences (direct and indirect) to staying and helping in a group, as well as the underlying causal factors (Griffin and West, 2002; Hatchwell and Komdeur, 2000).”
Kinship as a basis for alliance formation between male bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in the Bahamas (2003, positive): “Observations from societies of social insects indicate that levels of violence among kin are positively correlated with the importance of winning a fight ( Griffin & West 2002 ).”
Fitness consequences of group living in the degu Octodon degus, a plural breeder rodent with communal care (2009, background): “Individual fitness may be affected by intrinsic factors such as the composition of social groups and the relative extent of competitive and cooperative interactions within groups ( Griffin & West 2002; Silk 2007).”
Family insurance: kin selection and cooperative breeding in a solitary primate (Microcebus murinus) (2006, background): “The fact that allonursing occurs among relatives is not in itself sufficient evidence that kin selection is responsible for cooperation (Griffin and West 2002).”
Kin discrimination in juvenile mandrills, Mandrillus sphinx (2007, background): “…that the evolution of social behaviours between relatives will be promoted if these behaviours increase the inclusive fitness of individuals, either through the reproduction of related individuals (indirect fitness) or directly through their own reproduction (direct fitness; Griffin & West 2002).”
Extended safe havens and between-group dispersal of helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid (2005, background): “Several mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain how subordinates may increase their fitness by dispersing have been proposed, including obtaining a breeding vacancy, to avoid inbreeding (Pusey & Wolf, 1996), and to reduce competition with kin ( Griffin & West, 2002 ).”
Social evolution theory for microorganisms (2006, background): “This has led to the problem that there has been too little focus on the costs ( c ) and benefits ( b ) of behaviours (which can be relatively difficult to measure”
Cooperative breeding and its significance to the demographic success of humans. (2010, background): “First, the emphasis placed on indirect benefits may eclipse direct benefits to the helper and overstate the cost to help (Clutton-Brock 2002, Clutton-Brock et al. 2001, Griffin & West 2002).”
Sanctions, Cooperation, and the Stability of Plant-Rhizosphere Mutualisms (2008, methodology): “For cooperation among microbes of the same species, we can apply the well-developed, but widely misunderstood, theory of kin selection (Griffin & West 2002, West et al. 2008).”
Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans (2011, background): “…that our self-regarding preferences (broadly matching the predictions of classical rational choice theory) are explained by biological individualist selection while population-level (principally cultural) evolutionary processes explain why we have pro-social preferences (e.g., Shennan, 2002).”
Sanctions and mutualism stability: when should less beneficial mutualists be tolerated? (2002, background): “Analogous suggestions have been made for the role of different mechanisms at different stages of evolution and maintenance of cooperative breeding (i.e. mutualism within species; Clutton-Brock et al., 2001; Kokko et al., 2001; Griffin & West, 2002).”
Evolving the Psychological Mechanisms for Cooperation (2005, background): “Kin selection may be particularly powerful in cooperatively breeding species, although it by no means accounts for all cooperative behaviors in these systems (Clutton-Brock 2002, Cockburn 1998, Griffin & West 2002).”
A REEXAMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING PHILOPATRY IN RODENTS (2003, background): “If competition with same-sex group members for depreciable critical resources or breeding status (cf. Griffin and West 2002) is intense, philopatry may be detrimental.”