COOPERATION AND REPUTATION

Scientific Reports

A human solution to the problem of cooperation is the maintenance of informal reputation hierarchies. Reputational information contributes to cooperation by providing guidelines about previous group-beneficial or free-rider behaviour in social dilemma interactions. How reputation information could be credible, however, remains a puzzle. We test two potential safeguards to ensure credibility: (i) reputation is a scarce resource and (ii) it is not earned for direct benefits. We test these solutions in a laboratory experiment in which participants played two-person Prisoner’s Dilemma games without partner selection, could observe some other interactions, and could communicate reputational information about possible opponents to each other. Reputational information clearly influenced cooperation decisions. Although cooperation was not sustained at a high level in any of the conditions, the possibility of exchanging third-party information was able to temporarily increase the level of st...

PloS one, 2012

In the well-mixed prisoner's dilemma game, individuals are typically assumed to have no choice about whether to interact with other individuals in the population. In this paper, we instead consider reputation-based conditional interaction and its consequences for the evolution of cooperation. Each individual has a tolerance range, and only interacts with other individuals whose reputation lies within its tolerance range in a chosen sample of the population. Reputation contains information about the number of interaction partners an individual has just cooperated with. We find that the introduction of conditional interaction promotes cooperation in well-mixed populations, and there exist moderate tolerance ranges for which this effect is maximized. For a given tolerance range, there is a critical cost-to-benefit ratio below which cooperation can be promoted. Interestingly, we find that if cooperation evolves, different cooperators' interaction clusters are typically maintaine...

Physical Review E, 2008

We investigate the cooperation dynamics attributed to the interplay between the evolution of individual strategies and evolution of individual partnerships. We focus on the effect of reputation on an individual's partner-switching process. We assume that individuals can either change their strategies by imitating their partners or adjust their partnerships based on local information about reputations. We manipulate the partner switching in two ways; that is, individuals can switch from the lowest reputation partners, either to their partners' partners who have the highest reputation ͑i.e., ordering in partnership͒ or to others randomly chosen from the entire population ͑i.e., randomness in partnership͒. We show that when individuals are able to alter their behavioral strategies and their social interaction partnerships on the basis of reputation, cooperation can prevail. We find that the larger temptation to defect and the denser the partner network, the more frequently individuals need to shift their partnerships in order for cooperation to thrive. Furthermore, an increasing tendency of switching to partners' partners is more likely to lead to a higher level of cooperation. We show that when reputation is absent in such partner-switching processes, cooperation is much less favored than that of the reputation involved. Moreover, we investigate the effect of discounting an individual's reputation on the evolution of cooperation. Our results highlight the importance of the consideration of reputation ͑indirect reciprocity͒ on the promotion of cooperation when individuals can adjust their partnerships.

Evolution, 2013

The threat of punishment usually promotes cooperation. However, punishing itself is costly, 22 rare in non-human animals, and humans who punish often finish with low payoffs in 23 economic experiments. The evolution of punishment has therefore been unclear. Recent 24 theoretical developments suggest that punishment has evolved in the context of reputation 25 games. We tested this idea in a simple helping game with observers and with punishment and 26 punishment reputation (experimentally controlling for other possible reputational effects). We 27 show that punishers fully compensate their costs as they receive help more often. The more 28 likely defection is punished within a group, the higher the level of within-group cooperation. 29 These beneficial effects perish if the punishment reputation is removed. We conclude that 30 reputation is key to the evolution of punishment.

PLOS ONE, 2016

Despite the popularity of the notion that social cohesion in the form of dense social networks promotes cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemmas through reputation, very little experimental evidence for this claim exists. We address this issue by testing hypotheses from one of the few rigorous game-theoretic models on this topic, the Raub & Weesie model, in two incentivized lab experiments. In the experiments, 156 subjects played repeated two-person PDs in groups of six. In the "atomized interactions" condition, subjects were only informed about the outcomes of their own interactions, while in the "embedded" condition, subjects were informed about the outcomes of all interactions in their group, allowing for reputation effects. The design of the experiments followed the specification of the RW model as closely as possible. For those aspects of the model that had to be modified to allow practical implementation in an experiment, we present additional analyses that show that these modifications do not affect the predictions. Contrary to expectations, we do not find that cooperation is higher in the embedded condition than in the atomized interaction. Instead, our results are consistent with an interpretation of the RW model that includes random noise, or with learning models of cooperation in networks.

Cooperation is vital for our society, but the temptation of cheating on cooperative partners undermines cooperation. The mechanism of reputation is raised to countervail this temptation and therefore promote cooperation. Reputation microcosmically records individual choices, while cooperation macrocosmically refers to the group or averaged cooperation level. Reputation should be preferred in order to investigate how individual choices evolve. In this work, we study the distribution of reputation to figure out how individuals make choices within cooperation and defection. We decompose reputation into its mean and standard deviation and inspect effects of their factors respectively. To achieve this goal, we construct a model where agents of three groups or classes play the prisoners' dilemma game with neighbors on a square lattice. It indicates in outcomes that the distribution of reputation is distinct from that of cooperation and both the mean and standard deviation of reputation follow clear patterns. Some factors have negative quadratic effects on reputation's mean or standard deviation, and some have merely linear effects.

Despite recent advances in reputation technologies, it is not clear how reputation systems can affect human cooperation in social networks. Although it is known that two of the major mechanisms in the evolution of cooperation are spatial selection and reputation-based reciprocity, theoretical study of the interplay between both mechanisms remains almost uncharted. Here, we present a new individual-based model for the evolution of reciprocal cooperation between reputation and networks. We comparatively analyze four of the leading moral assessment rules—shunning, image scoring, stern judging, and simple standing—and base the model on the giving game in regular networks for Cooperators, Defectors, and Discriminators. Discriminators rely on a proper moral assessment rule. By using individual-based models, we show that the four assessment rules are differently characterized in terms of how cooperation evolves, depending on the benefit-to-cost ratio, the network-node degree, and the observation and error conditions. Our findings show that the most tolerant rule—simple standing—is the most robust among the four assessment rules in promoting cooperation in regular networks.

Human Nature

Research in various disciplines has highlighted that humans are uniquely able to solve the problem of cooperation through the informal mechanisms of reputation and gossip. Reputation coordinates the evaluative judgments of individuals about one another. Direct observation of actions and communication are the essential routes that are used to establish and update reputations. In large groups, where opportunities for direct observation are limited, gossip becomes an important channel to share individual perceptions and evaluations of others that can be used to condition cooperative action. Although reputation and gossip might consequently support large-scale human cooperation, four puzzles need to be resolved to understand the operation of reputation-based mechanisms. First, we need empirical evidence of the processes and content that form reputations and how this may vary cross-culturally. Second, we lack an understanding of how reputation is determined from the muddle of imperfect, ...

Biology Letters, 2010