Kin selection theory and multilevel selection theory are distinct approaches to explaining the evolution of social traits. The latter claims that it is useful to regard selection as a process that can occur on multiple levels of organisation such as the level of individuals and the level of groups. This is reflected in a decomposition of fitness into an individual component and a group component. This multilevel view is central to understanding and characterising evolutionary transitions in individuality, e.g., from unicellular life to multicellular organisms, but currently suffers from the lack of a consistent, quantifiable measure. Specifically, the two major statistical tools to determine the coefficients of such a decomposition, the multilevel Price equation and contextual analysis, are inconsistent and may disagree on whether group selection is present. Here we show that the reason for the discrepancies is that underlying the multilevel Price equation and contextual analysis are two non-equivalent causal models for the generation of individual fitness effects (thus leaving different “remainders” explained by group effects). While the multilevel Price equation assumes that the individual effect of a trait determines an individual's relative success within a group, contextual analysis posits that the individual effect is context-independent. Since these different assumptions reflect claims about the causal structure of the system, the correct approach cannot be determined on general theoretical or statistical grounds but must be identified by experimental intervention. We outline interventions that reveal the underlying causal structure and thus facilitate choosing the appropriate approach. We note that kin selection theory with its focus on the individual is immune to such inconsistency because it does not address causal structure with respect to levels of organisation. In contrast, our analysis of the two approaches to measuring group selection demonstrates that multilevel selection theory adds meaningful (falsifiable) causal structure to explain the sources of individual fitness and thereby constitutes a proper refinement of kin selection theory. Taking such refined causal structure into account seems indispensable for studying evolutionary transitions in individuality because these transitions are characterised by changes in the selection pressures that act on the respective levels.
Kin and group selection are both flawed but useful data analysis tools
