Cooperation and the Scale of Competition in Humans
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Relative Feedback Increases Disparities in Effort and Performance in Crowdsourcing Contests (2022) · cites this paper as West et al., 2006
Cites
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475 · see citing works
The evolution of altruistic punishment
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0630443100 · Cited by 1,748 · see citing works
Cooperation and competition in pathogenic bacteria
Griffin, A. S., West, S. A., & Buckling, A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02744 · Cited by 1,104 · see citing works
Self-citationIndirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02978 · Cited by 881 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection.
WEST, S. A., GRIFFIN, A. S., & GARDNER, A. (2007) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01258.x · Cited by 1,889 · see citing works
Self-citationGendron, M., Mesquita, B., & Barrett, L. F. (2020) · Culture, Mind, and Brain · doi:10.1017/9781108695374.010 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Relative Feedback Increases Disparities in Effort and Performance in Crowdsourcing Contests
Tsvetkova, M., Müller, S., Vuculescu, O., Ham, H., & Sergeev, R. A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555649 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (vor, 2639 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- 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