Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:07:54.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Theory and Evidence for Reciprocal Altruism

from Part II - Middle-Level Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

Reciprocity is a mechanism for the evolution of cooperation. This mechanism explains cooperation among unrelated individuals by an assortment in which individuals restrict their interaction partners to avoid being exploited by defectors. Three types of reciprocal mechanisms have been proposed: direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, and network (spatial) reciprocity. Direct reciprocity is a behavior whereby an individual acts in a manner that temporarily reduces his or her fitness while increasing another individual’s fitness with the expectation that the other individual will behave similarly at a later time. If individuals who use direct reciprocity both regard each other as cooperative, they will establish reciprocal relationships. Indirect reciprocity is a mechanism that enables individuals to establish cooperative relationships, e.g., by evaluating others’ behavior, without having direct interactions, which are required by direct reciprocity. If an individual cooperates with individuals with good reputations and that individual establishes a good reputation, cooperation via indirect reciprocity can occur. Network reciprocity explains reciprocal relationships via restriction of interaction, e.g., network and spatial restrictions, namely, individuals interact with fixed individuals in a network. If cooperative clusters arise, cooperators realize high fitness by cooperating with each other. Theoretical studies have explored the evolutionary stability of the cooperation that facilitates these reciprocities. Experimental studies have examined the evidence for these reciprocities according to the theoretical studies. These theoretical and experimental studies assume a simple interaction among individuals for cooperative and reciprocal behavior, such as in evolutionary game theory. By examining such theoretical and experimental evidence in a less restrictive environment, these pieces of evidence can be generalized to natural environments and real life. Human behavior logs on the Internet, e.g., online games, can be utilized in such studies. In this chapter we review the theory and evidence for the three types of reciprocities. First, we introduce evolutionary game theory as a framework for the evolution of cooperation, such as reciprocal altruism. Second, we explain the three types of reciprocity by reviewing results of theoretical studies. Third, we present experimental evidence for human reciprocity, which supports these evolutionary theories of reciprocity. Finally, we present empirical evidence for human reciprocity in practice using an online game dataset, which represents a less restrictive environment.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrod, R. The evolution of cooperation (revised edition). New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472476.Google Scholar
Barkow, J., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1995). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, H., Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., & Sigmund, K. (2007). A survey of indirect reciprocity. In Takeuchi, Y., Iwasa, Y., & Sato, K. (Eds.), Mathematics for ecology and environmental sciences (pp. 2149). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cassar, A. (2007). Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 58(2), 209230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castronova, E. (2006). On the research value of large games: Natural experiments in Norrath and Camelot. Games and Culture, 1(2), 163186.Google Scholar
Dal Bó, P., & Fréchette, G. R. (2011). The evolution of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: Experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 101(1), 411429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J., & Ochs, J. (2009). Cooperative behavior and the frequency of social interaction. Games and Economic Behavior, 66(2), 785812.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100110.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2018). The anatomy of friendship. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 3251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrell, J. (1987). Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(1), 3439.Google Scholar
Fehl, K., van der Post, D. J., & Semmann, D. (2011). Co-evolution of behaviour and social network structure promotes human cooperation. Ecology Letters, 14(6), 546551.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(23), 785791.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D., Rand, D. G., & Dreber, A. (2012). Slow to anger and fast to forgive: Cooperation in an uncertain world. American Economic Review, 102, 720749.Google Scholar
Gächter, S., Kessler-Esther, E., and Königstein, M. (2010). Do incentives destroy voluntary cooperation? Working Paper.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Fosco, C., Araujo, L., Cuesta, J., & Sánchez, A. (2010). Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial prisoner’s dilemma. PLoS One, 5(11), e13749.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Röhl, T., Semmann, D., Milinski, M., & Traulsen, A. (2012). Consistent strategy updating in spatial and non-spatial behavioral experiments does not promote cooperation in social networks. PLoS One, 7(11), e47718.Google Scholar
Ichinose, G., & Arita, T. (2008). The role of migration and founder effect for the evolution of cooperation in a multilevel selection context. Ecological Modelling, 210(3), 221230.Google Scholar
Keser, C., and Van Winden, F. (2000). Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 2339.Google Scholar
Leimar, O., & Hammerstein, P. (2001). Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1468), 745753.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153174.Google Scholar
Lindgren, K. (1991). Evolutionary phenomena in simple dynamics. In Artificial Life II Conference (pp. 295–312).Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1994). Must reliable signals always be costly? Animal Behaviour, 47(5), 11151120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (2000). The origins of life: From the birth of life to the origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Bakker, T. C. M., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: Image scoring or standing strategy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1484), 24952501.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Nature, 415(6870), 424426.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 15601563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 5658.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998a). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573577.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998b). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194(4), 561574.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092), 502505.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., & Iwasa, Y. (2004). How should we define goodness? Reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(1), 107120.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., and Iwasa, Y. (2006). The leading eight: Social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239(4), 435444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pacheco, J. M., Santos, F. C., & Chalub, F. A. C. C. (2006). Sternjudging: A simple, successful norm which promotes cooperation under indirect reciprocity. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(12), e178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2003). A tale of two defectors: The importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 224(1), 115126.Google Scholar
Pepper, J. W. (2007). Simple models of assortment through environmental feedback. Artificial Life, 13(1), 19.Google Scholar
Pepper, J. W., & Smuts, B. B. (2002). A mechanism for the evolution of altruism among nonkin: Positive assortment through environmental feedback. The American Naturalist, 160(2), 205213.Google Scholar
Perc, M., & Szolnoki, A. (2010). Coevolutionary games: A mini review. BioSystems, 99(2), 109125.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., & Christakis, N. (2011). Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(48), 1919319198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413425.Google Scholar
Santos, F., Pacheco, J., and Lenaerts, T. (2006). Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(10), e140.Google Scholar
Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS One, 6(3), e16836.Google Scholar
Szell, M., Sinatra, R., Petri, G., Thurner, S., & Latora, V. (2012). Understanding mobility in a social petri dish. Scientific Reports, 2, 457.Google Scholar
Szell, M., & Thurner, S. (2010). Measuring social dynamics in a massive multiplayer online game. Social Networks, 32(4), 313329.Google Scholar
Szell, M., & Thurner, S. (2013). How women organize social networks different from men. Scientific Reports, 3, 1214.Google Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2015). Environmentally driven migration in a social network game. Scientific Reports, 5, 12481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2016a). Lightweight interactions for reciprocal cooperation in a social network game. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo) (pp. 125–137).Google Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2016b). Reciprocal altruism-based cooperation in a social network game. New Generation Computing, 34(3), 257271.Google Scholar
Tanimoto, J., & Sagara, H. (2007). Relationship between dilemma occurrence and the existence of a weakly dominant strategy in a two-player symmetric game. BioSystems, 90(1), 105114.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 3537.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2012). Cooperation and assortativity with dynamic partner updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(36), 1436314368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, D. J. (2011). Everything is obvious*: *Once you know the answer. New York, NY: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288(5467), 850852.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×