Cited by 172Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Cooperation and the Scale of Competition in Humans

Open access
West, Stuart A., Gardner, Andy, Shuker, David M., Reynolds, Tracy, Burton-Chellow, Max, Sykes, Edward M., Guinnee, Meghan A., Griffin, Ashleigh S.·2006·Current Biology

Abstract

Explaining cooperation is one of the greatest challenges for evolutionary biology. It is particularly a problem in species such as humans, where there is cooperation between nonrelatives. Numerous possible solutions have been suggested for the problem of cooperation between nonrelatives, including punishment, policing, and various forms of reciprocity. Here, we suggest that local competition for resources can pose a problem for these hypotheses, analogous to how it can select against cooperation between relatives. We extend the prisoner's dilemma (PD) game to show that local competition between interacting individuals can reduce selection for cooperation between nonrelatives. This is because, with local competition, fitness is relative to social partners, and cooperation benefits social partners. We then test whether nonrelated humans adjust their level of cooperation facultatively in response to the scale of competition when playing the PD for cash prizes. As predicted, we found that individuals were less likely to cooperate when competition was relatively local. Cooperation between humans will therefore be most likely when repeated interactions take place on a local scale between small numbers of people, and competition for resources takes place on a more global scale among large numbers of people.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.069

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Within-group competition for scarce resources diminishes cooperation.

    “Within-group competition for scarce resources reduces trust and trustworthiness (Charness, Masclet, & Villeval, 2013;Chowdhury & Gürtler, 2015;Liu, Lin, & Xin, 2014), decreases contributions to public goods (Barker & Barclay, 2016), diminishes cooperation (West et al., 2006), and hinders agreement in bargaining situations (Barclay & Stoller, 2014).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
West, S. A., Gardner, A., Shuker, D. M., Reynolds, T., Burton-Chellow, M., Sykes, E. M., Guinnee, M. A., & Griffin, A. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
West, Stuart A.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-06
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
1103-1106
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999983971
Cited by
172
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
25.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Royal Society
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  • Natural Environment Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
cooperation, local competition, prisoner's dilemma, reciprocity, punishment, social policing, repeated interaction, human evolution
MeSH terms
Competitive Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Game Theory, Humans, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review