Cited by 388Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity

Panchanathan, Karthik, Boyd, Robert·2003·Journal of Theoretical Biology

Abstract

Indirect reciprocity occurs when the cooperative behavior between two individuals is contingent on their previous behavior toward others. Previous theoretical analysis indicates that indirect reciprocity can evolve if individuals use an image-scoring strategy. In this paper, we show that, when errors are added, indirect reciprocity cannot be based on an image-scoring strategy. However, if individuals use a standing strategy, then cooperation through indirect reciprocity is evolutionarily stable. These two strategies differ with respect to the information to which they attend. While image-scoring strategies only need attend to the actions of others, standing strategies also require information about intent. We speculate that this difference may shed light on the evolvability of indirect reciprocity. Additionally, we show that systems of indirect reciprocity are highly sensitive to the availability of information. Finally, we present a model which shows that if indirect reciprocity were to evolve, selection should also favor trusting behavior in relations between strangers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00154-1

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A simpler model based on a binary score ('good' or 'bad') was proposed.

    “In order to analyse these questions, an even simpler model was proposed, based on a binary score, taking only the values 'good' or 'bad', depending on what the co-player did when last observed 39-41 .”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [40]

  • This mixture can be vulnerable to the invasion of defectors.

    “This mixture can be vulnerable to the invasion of defectors 39,40 .”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Panchanathan, Karthik
Venue
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-09
Volume
224
Issue
1
Pages
115-126
ISSN
0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979970001
Cited by
388
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
70.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Theoretical Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
indirect reciprocity, evolution of cooperation, evolutionarily stable strategy, information availability, defectors
MeSH terms
Altruism, Cooperative Behavior, Biological Evolution, Helping Behavior, Hierarchy, Social, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Models, Psychological, Trust

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