Cited by 79Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

Indirect reciprocity among imperfect individuals

Fishman, Michael A.·2003·Journal of Theoretical Biology

Abstract

Reciprocal cooperation occurs when the overall benefits of receiving help exceed the costs of donating help (Q. Rev. Biol. 46 (197) 35). That is, individuals in good condition--for whom the pertinent costs are relatively small; donate help in order to secure reciprocity in their hour of need--when the benefits of receiving a donation are large. Consequently, reciprocity occurs among individuals who occasionally need help. In particular, such individuals will be unable to help others, no matter how deserving, when in need of help themselves--involuntary defection. This paper deals with the effects of involuntary defection in the context of a specific model of indirect reciprocity (i.e. reciprocal altruism that is directed toward all the cooperative members of the community) due to Nowak and Sigmund (J. Theor. Biol.194 (1998b) 561: Sections 2-4). In that model, the authors formulate the decision rules for conditional cooperation in the context of indirect reciprocity, and demonstrate that these decision rules can account for a long-term persistence of cooperation. Here we show that addition of involuntary defection to the decision rules formulated by Nowak and Sigmund results in indirect reciprocity that is evolutionary stable under appropriate conditions. Moreover, for a wide range of parameter values, evolutionary stability of cooperation requires a mixture of conditional- and unconditional-altruist behaviors. To recollect, unconditional altruist strategy can be viewed as con…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00246-7

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

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?

  • Various assumptions on the distribution of the number of rounds lead to a bi-stable system, where depending on the initial state, the population converges either to the fixation of defectors, or to a stable mix of altruists which cannot be invaded by defectors.

    “Various assumptions on the distribution of the number of rounds lead to a bi-stable system, where depending on the initial state, the population converges either to the fixation of defectors, or to a stable mix of altruists which cannot be invaded by defectors 52,53 .”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [53]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fishman, M. A.
Affiliations
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Fishman, Michael A.
Venue
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-12
Volume
225
Issue
3
Pages
285-292
ISSN
0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077149819
Cited by
79
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
18.17
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 › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Keywords
indirect reciprocity, reciprocal cooperation, evolutionary stability, conditional cooperation, forgiveness, reciprocal altruism
MeSH terms
Altruism, Animals, Aptitude, Cooperative Behavior, Biological Evolution, Models, Psychological

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