Cited by 1,797Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior

A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game

Nowak, Martin, Sigmund, Karl·1993·Nature

Abstract

The Prisoner's Dilemma is the leading metaphor for the evolution of cooperative behaviour in populations of selfish agents, especially since the well-known computer tournaments of Axelrod and their application to biological communities. In Axelrod's simulations, the simple strategy tit-for-tat did outstandingly well and subsequently became the major paradigm for reciprocal altruism. Here we present extended evolutionary simulations of heterogeneous ensembles of probabilistic strategies including mutation and selection, and report the unexpected success of another protagonist: Pavlov. This strategy is as simple as tit-for-tat and embodies the fundamental behavioural mechanism win-stay, lose-shift, which seems to be a widespread rule. Pavlov's success is based on two important advantages over tit-for-tat: it can correct occasional mistakes and exploit unconditional cooperators. This second feature prevents Pavlov populations from being undermined by unconditional cooperators, which in turn invite defectors. Pavlov seems to be more robust than tit-for-tat, suggesting that cooperative behaviour in natural situations may often be based on win-stay, lose-shift.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/364056a0

Cites

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?

  • The simulations display occasional bursts of defection, which are based on a previous build-up of undiscriminating altruists.

    “The simulations display occasional bursts of defection, which are based on a previous build-up of undiscriminating altruists.”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]

  • In a population of discriminators, unconditional cooperators can increase by random drift and eventually invite the invasion of defectors.

    “In a population of discriminators, unconditional cooperators can increase by random drift and eventually invite the invasion of defectors.”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]

  • The cooperative outcome in the indirect reciprocity model lacks stability.

    “The second issue concerns the lack of stability of the cooperative outcome.”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]

  • Individual-based simulations show that if the cost-to-benefit ratio is sufficiently low, and the amount of information about the co-player's past sufficiently high, cooperation based on discrimination can emerge.

    “Individual-based simulations show that if the cost-to-benefit ratio is sufficiently low, and the amount of information about the co-player's past sufficiently high, cooperation based on discrimination can emerge.”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]

  • In the resulting population, help is channelled towards those who help.

    “In the resulting population, help is channelled towards those who help 35-37 .”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [35]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Venue
Nature
Published
1993-07
Volume
364
Issue
6432
Pages
56-58
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W1979025384
Cited by
1,797
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 55 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 83 · 2023: 87 · 2022: 84 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 91 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 71 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 92
FWCI
145.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (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
prisoner's dilemma, win-stay lose-shift, tit-for-tat, evolution of cooperation, reciprocal altruism, probabilistic strategies, evolutionary dynamics, mutation and selection, unconditional cooperation, defectors, Axelrod tournaments
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Cooperative Behavior, Biological Evolution, Game Theory

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