The frequency of left-handedness in humans is ~10% worldwide and slightly higher in males than females. Twin and family studies estimate the heritability of human handedness at around 25%. The low but substantial frequency of left-handedness has been suggested to imply negative frequency-dependent selection, e.g. owing to a ‘surprise’ advantage of left-handers in combat against opponents more used to fighting right-handers. Because such game-theoretic hypotheses involve social interaction, here we perform an analysis of the evolution of handedness based on kin-selection, which is understood to play a major role in the evolution of social behaviour generally. We show that: (1) relatedness modulates the balance of right-handedness vs. left-handedness, according to whether left-handedness is marginally selfish vs. marginally altruistic; (2) sex differences in relatedness to social partners may drive sex differences in handedness; (3) differential relatedness of parents and offspring may generate parent–offspring conflict and sexual conflict leading to the evolution of maternal and paternal genetic effects in relation to handedness; and (4) differential relatedness of maternal-origin vs. paternal-origin genes may generate intragenomic conflict leading to the evolution of parent-of-origin-specific gene effects – such as ‘genomic imprinting’ – and associated maladaptation.

Political and social attitudes have been shown to differ by sex in a way that tracks individual self-interest. We propose that these attitudes also change strategically to serve the best interests of either male or female kin. To test this hypothesis, we developed a measure of gendered fitness interests (GFI) – an index which reflects the sex, relatedness and residual reproductive value of close kin. We predicted that people with male-biased GFI (i.e. people with more male kin of a reproductive age) would have more conservative attitudes towards gender-related issues (e.g. gender roles, women's rights, abortion rights). An online study using an American sample (N = 560) found support for this hypothesis. Further analyses revealed that this relationship was driven not only by people's own sex and reproductive value but also by those of their descendant kin. Exploratory analyses also found a positive association between male-biased GFI and a measure of conformity, as well as a smaller association between male-biased GFI and having voted Republican in the last election. Both of these associations were statistically mediated by gender-related conservatism. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that GFI influences sociopolitical attitudes.

Many of the most important properties of human groups – including properties that may give one group an evolutionary advantage over another – are properly defined only at the level of group organization. Yet at present, most work on the evolution of culture has focused solely on the transmission of individual-level traits. I propose a conceptual extension of the theory of cultural evolution, particularly related to the evolutionary competition between cultural groups. The key concept in this extension is the emergent group-level trait. This type of trait is characterized by the structured organization of differentiated individuals and constitutes a unit of selection that is qualitatively different from selection on groups as defined by traditional multilevel selection (MLS) theory. As a corollary, I argue that the traditional focus on cooperation as the defining feature of human societies has missed an essential feature of cooperative groups. Traditional models of cooperation assume that interacting with one cooperator is equivalent to interacting with any other. However, human groups involve differential roles, meaning that receiving aid from one individual is often preferred to receiving aid from another. In this target article, I discuss the emergence and evolution of group-level traits and the implications for the theory of cultural evolution, including ramifications for the evolution of human cooperation, technology, and cultural institutions, and for the equivalency of multilevel selection and inclusive fitness approaches.

The maximum lifespan (MLS) of Homo sapiens is substantially greater than that of our closest relatives, the non-human primates. Since evolutionary divergence from a common primate ancestor occurred relatively recently, the genetic changes affecting MLS must have occurred quickly. The evolution of MLS is generally explainable as a pleiotropic effect of genetic material that speeds or postpones cellular damage. However, in humans it can be argued that direct selection for longevity is plausible: through mechanisms of personal fitness among males and inclusive fitness among females. A flaw to such an explanatory approach is that it is non-falsifiable.