The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Conformity enhances network reciprocity in evolutionary social dilemmas
Open accessAbstract
The pursuit of highest payoffs in evolutionary social dilemmas is risky and sometimes inferior to conformity. Choosing the most common strategy within the interaction range is safer because it ensures that the payoff of an individual will not be much lower than average. Herding instincts and crowd behaviour in humans and social animals also compel to conformity in their own right. Motivated by these facts, we here study the impact of conformity on the evolution of cooperation in social dilemmas. We show that an appropriate fraction of conformists within the population introduces an effective surface tension around cooperative clusters and ensures smooth interfaces between different strategy domains. Payoff-driven players brake the symmetry in favour of cooperation and enable an expansion of clusters past the boundaries imposed by traditional network reciprocity. This mechanism works even under the most testing conditions, and it is robust against variations of the interaction network as long as degree-normalized payoffs are applied. Conformity may thus be beneficial for the resolution of social dilemmas.
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
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Evolution and the Theory of Games
Smith, J. M. (1988) · Did Darwin Get It Right? · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7862-4_22 · Cited by 7,906
Evolution and the Theory of Games
Smith, J. M. (1982) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806292 · Cited by 6,922
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.
Lenski, G., & Wilson, E. O. (1976) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2576242 · Cited by 6,271
Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation
Nowak, M. A. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1133755 · Cited by 5,894
Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics
Hofbauer, J., & Sigmund, K. (1998) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173179 · Cited by 5,502
Evolutionary games and spatial chaos
Nowak, M. A., & May, R. M. (1992) · Nature · doi:10.1038/359826a0 · Cited by 4,463
Statistical physics of social dynamics
Castellano, C., Fortunato, S., & Loreto, V. (2009) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.591 · Cited by 4,119
Kivela, M., Arenas, A., Barthelemy, M., Gleeson, J. P., Moreno, Y., & Porter, M. A. (2014) · Journal of Complex Networks · doi:10.1093/comnet/cnu016 · Cited by 3,235
Szabó, G., & Fáth, G. (2007) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.04.004 · Cited by 2,974
Cited by
Conditional investment strategy in evolutionary trust games with repeated group interactions
Liu, L., & Chen, X. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.07.073 · Cited by 45
Blocking defector invasion by focusing on the most successful partner
Szolnoki, A., & Chen, X. (2020) · Applied Mathematics and Computation · doi:10.1016/j.amc.2020.125430 · Cited by 43
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Szolnoki, A., & Perc, M.
- Venue
- Journal of The Royal Society Interface
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 103
- Pages
- 20141299
- ISSN
- 1742-5662 (ISSN-L)
- 1742-5689
- OpenAlex
- W1980054933
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 90
- FWCI
- 68.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Conformity enhances network reciprocity in evolutionary social dilemmas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rsif.2014.1299
- The paper
- Szolnoki, A., & Perc, M. (2015). Conformity enhances network reciprocity in evolutionary social dilemmas. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.1299
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.