IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0331044.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Matrix games between full siblings in Mendelian populations

Author

Listed:
  • József Garay
  • Tamás Varga
  • Villő Csiszár
  • Tamás F Móri
  • András Szilágyi

Abstract

We develop a model that integrates evolutionary matrix game theory with Mendelian genetics. Within this framework, we define the genotype dynamics that describes how the frequencies of genotypes change in sexual diploid populations. We show that our formal definition of evolutionary stability for genotype distributions implies the stability of the corresponding interior equilibrium point in the genotype dynamics. We apply our findings to a model of familial selection, where the survival rates of siblings in monogamous families are determined by a matrix game between them. According to Mendelian inheritance, the behaviour associated with each genotype is uniquely determined by an autosomal (recessive-dominant or intermediate) allele pair. We provide general conditions for the evolutionary stability of homozygote populations. We find that the payoff matrix and the genotype-phenotype map together determine this stability. In numerical examples we consider the prisoner’s dilemma between siblings. Based on the evolutionary stability of the pure cooperator and defector states, we provide a potential classification of the genotype dynamics. We distinguish between two cases: one in which the total survival rate is higher in cooperator-cooperator interactions (“coordinated” case), and another in which it is higher in cooperator-defector interactions (“anti-coordinated” case). In the coordinated case, global stability of cooperator homozygote population is possible but not necessary, since bistability, stable coexistence of cooperators and defectors, and even global stability of the defector homozygote state are all possible, depending on the interaction between the phenotypic payoff matrix and the genotype-phenotype mapping. In the anti-coordinated case, the cooperator homozygote population cannot be stable. Thus, similarly to the group selection theory, the welfare of the family (the sum of the survival rates of siblings) governs the emergence of cooperative behavior among family members. Finally, in the case of the donation game, the classical Hamilton’s rule determines whether the homozygous cooperator or the homozygous defector population is stable; bistability or stable coexistence are impossible.

Suggested Citation

  • József Garay & Tamás Varga & Villő Csiszár & Tamás F Móri & András Szilágyi, 2025. "Matrix games between full siblings in Mendelian populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-29, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331044
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331044
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331044&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0331044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bergstrom, Theodore C, 1995. "On the Evolution of Altruistic Ethical Rules for Siblings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 58-81, March.
    2. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 1996. "Economics in a Family Way," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1903-1934, December.
    3. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 1996. "Economics in a Family Way," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1903-1934, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    2. Ingela Alger & Donald Cox, 2013. "The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 421-446, September.
    3. Paul J. Zak, 2002. "Genetics, family structure, and economic growth," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 343-365.
    4. Alger, Ingela & Weibull, Jörgen W. & Lehmann, Laurent, 2020. "Evolution of preferences in structured populations: Genes, guns, and culture," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Alger, Ingela & Cox, Donald, 2020. "Evolution of the Family: Theory and Implications for Economics," TSE Working Papers 20-1139, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    6. Khalil, Elias L., 2004. "What is altruism?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 97-123, February.
    7. Francesconi, Marco & Ghiglino, Christian & Perry, Motty, 2009. "On the Origin of the Family," IZA Discussion Papers 4637, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    8. Alger, Ingela & Lehmann, Laurent & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2018. "Evolution of preferences in group-structured populations: genes, guns, and culture," IAST Working Papers 18-73, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST), revised Oct 2019.
    9. Wolff, Francois-Charles & Laferrere, Anne, 2006. "Microeconomic models of family transfers," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 13, pages 889-969, Elsevier.
    10. De Fraja, Gianni, 2009. "The origin of utility: Sexual selection and conspicuous consumption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 51-69, October.
    11. Francesconi, Marco & Ghiglino, Christian & Perry, Motty, 2016. "An evolutionary theory of monogamy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 605-628.
    12. Éric Langlais, 2010. "On unilateral divorce and the “selection of marriages” hypothesis," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 76(3), pages 229-256.
    13. repec:tiu:tiutis:fe79a9d2-e9e3-4dbc-9539-cdece886993d is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Steven F. Koch, 2005. "Love and Addiction: The Importance of Commitment," Working Papers 200516, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    15. Domenico Tabasso, 2011. "With or Without You: Hazard of Divorce and Intra-household Allocation of Time," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2011n07, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    16. Rickard Eriksson & Magnus Nermo, 2010. "Care for Sick Children as a Proxy for Gender Equality in the Family," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 97(3), pages 341-356, July.
    17. Smith, Trenton G. & Tasnadi, Attila, 2007. "A theory of natural addiction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 316-344, May.
    18. Jellal, Mohamed & Wolff, Francois-Charles, 2000. "Shaping intergenerational relationships: the demonstration effect," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 255-261, September.
    19. Gibson, Mhairi A. & Gurmu, Eshetu & Chua, Regina & Van Bavel, Hannelore & Myers, Sarah, 2023. "Abandoning female genital mutilation/cutting (FGMC) is an emerging but costly parental investment strategy in rural Ethiopia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 335(C).
    20. Donald Cox, 2001. "How Do People Decide to Allocate Transfers Among Family Members?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 514, Boston College Department of Economics.
    21. Donald Cox & Oded Stark, 2007. "On the Demand for Grandchildren: Tied Transfers and the Demonstration Effect," Chapters, in: Luigino Bruni & Pier Luigi Porta (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Happiness, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331044. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.