The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations
Open accessAbstract
Unlike other species, humans cooperate in large, distantly related groups, a fact that has long presented a puzzle to biologists. The pathway by which adaptations for large-scale cooperation among nonkin evolved in humans remains a subject of vigorous debate. Results from theoretical analyses and agent-based simulations suggest that evolutionary dynamics need not yield homogeneous populations, but can instead generate a polymorphic population that consists of individuals who vary in their degree of cooperativeness. These results resonate with the recent increasing emphasis on the importance of individual differences in understanding and modeling behavior and dynamics in experimental games and decision problems. Here, we report the results of laboratory experiments that complement both theory and simulation results. We find that our subjects fall into three types, an individual's type is stable, and a group's cooperative outcomes can be remarkably well predicted if one knows its type composition. Reciprocal types, who contribute to the public good as a positive function of their beliefs about others' contributions, constitute the majority (63%) of players; cooperators and free-riders are also present in our subject population. Despite substantial behavioral differences, earnings among types are statistically identical. Our results support the view that our human subject population is in a stable, polymorphic equilibrium of types.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475
Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(01)00394-9 · Cited by 2,780
Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/31225 · Cited by 2,700
The evolution of altruistic punishment
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0630443100 · Cited by 1,748
Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1992) · Ethology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1016/0162-3095(92)90032-y · Cited by 1,482
A tale of two defectors: the importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2003) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00154-1 · Cited by 388
Cited by
Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017346 · Cited by 2,174
Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature
Chaudhuri, A. (2011) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1 · Cited by 1,445
The Competitive Advantage of Sanctioning Institutions
Gürerk, O., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1123633 · Cited by 997
Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., Mathew, S., Newton, E. K., Naar, N., Newson, L., et al. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1400106x · Cited by 639
Conditional Cooperation and Costly Monitoring Explain Success in Forest Commons Management
Rustagi, D., Engel, S., & Kosfeld, M. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1193649 · Cited by 575
Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans
Barclay, P., & Willer, R. (2007) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0209 · Cited by 485
Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable
Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5939 · Cited by 426
Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game
Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0710069105 · Cited by 371
Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments
Gunnthorsdottir, A., Houser, D., & McCabe, K. (2007) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.03.008 · Cited by 273
Self-citationOpen collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0872 · Cited by 263
Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games
Sylwester, K., & Roberts, G. (2010) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0209 · Cited by 206
A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion
Vigil, J. M. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09991075 · Cited by 173
Zero-Sum Bias: Perceived Competition Despite Unlimited Resources
Meegan, D. V. (2010) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00191 · Cited by 114
Boone, C., Declerck, C., & Kiyonari, T. (2010) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002710372329 · Cited by 84
Conditional reciprocity in the investment game
Ahmed, A. (2011) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2010.11.005 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurzban, R., & Houser, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2005-01-21
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1803-1807
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2164409343
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 76.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
