Cited by 1,371Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesGame Theory and Applications

Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’

Milinski, Manfred, Semmann, Dirk, Krambeck, Hans-Jürgen·2002·Nature

Abstract

The problem of sustaining a public resource that everybody is free to overuse-the 'tragedy of the commons'-emerges in many social dilemmas, such as our inability to sustain the global climate. Public goods experiments, which are used to study this type of problem, usually confirm that the collective benefit will not be produced. Because individuals and countries often participate in several social games simultaneously, the interaction of these games may provide a sophisticated way by which to maintain the public resource. Indirect reciprocity, 'give and you shall receive', is built on reputation and can sustain a high level of cooperation, as shown by game theorists. Here we show, through alternating rounds of public goods and indirect reciprocity games, that the need to maintain reputation for indirect reciprocity maintains contributions to the public good at an unexpectedly high level. But if rounds of indirect reciprocation are not expected, then contributions to the public good drop quickly to zero. Alternating the games leads to higher profits for all players. As reputation may be a currency that is valid in many social games, our approach could be used to test social dilemmas for their solubility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/415424a

Cites

22 of 22 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?

  • When people make moral decisions, they often consider how others would judge them for behaving selfishly.

    “When people make moral decisions, they often consider how others would judge them for behaving selfishly 177,178 .”
  • A discriminating strategy that defects in all rounds of the indirect reciprocity game if the recipient is known to have defected in the public goods game can guarantee stable cooperation.

    “A discriminating strategy, which defects in all rounds of the indirect reciprocity game if the recipient is known to have defected in the public goods game, can guarantee stable cooperation.”

    From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [74]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H.-J.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Milinski, Manfred
Venue
Nature
Published
2002-01
Volume
415
Issue
6870
Pages
424-426
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2006469409
Cited by
1,371
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 82 · 2012: 71
FWCI
95.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
tragedy of the commons, reputation, indirect reciprocity, public goods game, social dilemmas, cooperation, climate change
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Games, Experimental, Humans, Reward, Socioeconomic Factors, Sociology, Models, Economic

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