Indirect Reciprocity and the Evolution of Prejudicial Groups
Open accessAbstract
Prejudicial attitudes are widely seen between human groups, with significant consequences. Actions taken in light of prejudice result in discrimination, and can contribute to societal division and hostile behaviours. We define a new class of group, the prejudicial group, with membership based on a common prejudicial attitude towards the out-group. It is assumed that prejudice acts as a phenotypic tag, enabling groups to form and identify themselves on this basis. Using computational simulation, we study the evolution of prejudicial groups, where members interact through indirect reciprocity. We observe how cooperation and prejudice coevolve, with cooperation being directed in-group. We also consider the co-evolution of these variables when out-group interaction and global learning are immutable, emulating the possible pluralism of a society. Diversity through three factors is found to be influential, namely out-group interaction, out-group learning and number of sub-populations. Additionally populations with greater in-group interaction promote both cooperation and prejudice, while global rather than local learning promotes cooperation and reduces prejudice. The results also demonstrate that prejudice is not dependent on sophisticated human cognition and is easily manifested in simple agents with limited intelligence, having potential implications for future autonomous systems and human-machine interaction.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Confirmation bias would have been adaptive in the past in sustaining SFPs of social conceptions, including negative stereotypes.
“In sustaining SFPs of these conceptions, which might have included various stereotypes or ethnocentric, prejudicial attitudes that we today consider offensive negative trait ascriptions (e.g., gender or racist stereotypes) (Whitaker et al. 2018), confirmation bias would have been adaptive in the past.”
From What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? (2022) · cites this paper as Whitaker et al. 2018
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 97 · Cited by 33
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- [2]Nelson, T. D. Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. (MIT press, 2004).
- [5]Bobo, L. Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In Eliminating racism, 85–114 (Springer, 1988).
- [17]Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. (Cambridge/Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954).
- [21]Smith, J. M. Evolution and the Theory of Games. (Cambridge university press, 1982).
- [28]Hales, D. Cooperation without memory or space: Tags, groups and the prisoner’s dilemma. In International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation, 157–166 (Springer, 2000).
- [40]Lumsden, C. J. & Wilson, E. O. Genes, mind, and culture: The coevolutionary process. (World Scientific, 1981).
- [54]Suls, J. & Wheeler, L. Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).
- [60]Sugden, R. The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. (Blackwell Oxford, 1986).
- [72]Pariser, E. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. (Penguin UK, 2011).
- [74]Lin, N. Building a network theory of social capital. In Social capital, 3–28 (Routledge, 2017).
- Authors
- Whitaker, R. M., Colombo, G. B., & Rand, D. G.
- Affiliations
- Cardiff University (GB)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whitaker, Roger M.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2018-09-05
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13247-13247
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6125379
- OpenAlex
- W2889474513
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 97
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 8.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Yale University
- Cardiff University
- European Regional Development Fund
- Army Research Laboratory (W911NF‐16‐3‐0001, W911NF)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Keywords
- indirect reciprocity, prejudice, evolution of cooperation, in-group cooperation, global learning, local learning, social diversity, group identity, coevolution, computer simulation, autonomous systems, human-machine interaction
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Computer Simulation, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Models, Psychological, Prejudice, User-Computer Interface
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