Cited by 15Evolutionary Game Theory and CooperationExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesGame Theory and Applications

Evolution of conditional cooperation in public good games

Open access
Battu, Balaraju, Srinivasan, Narayanan·2020·Royal Society Open Science

Abstract

Cooperation declines in repeated public good games because individuals behave as conditional cooperators. This is because individuals imitate the social behaviour of successful individuals when their payoff information is available. However, in human societies, individuals cooperate in many situations involving social dilemmas. We hypothesize that humans are sensitive to both success (payoffs) and how that success was obtained, by cheating (not socially sanctioned) or good behaviour (socially sanctioned and adds to prestige or reputation), when information is available about payoffs and prestige. We propose and model a repeated public good game with heterogeneous conditional cooperators where an agent's donation in a public goods game depends on comparing the number of donations in the population in the previous round and with the agent's arbitrary chosen conditional cooperative criterion. Such individuals imitate the social behaviour of role models based on their payoffs and prestige. The dependence is modelled by two population-level parameters: affinity towards payoff and affinity towards prestige . These affinities influence the degree to which agents value the payoff and prestige of role models. Agents update their conditional strategies by considering both parameters. The simulations in this study show that high levels of cooperation are established in a population consisting of heterogeneous conditional cooperators for a certain range of affinity parameters in repeated public good games. The results show that social value (prestige) is important in establishing cooperation.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.191567

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Negative reciprocity can be switched to positive reciprocity given sufficient cooperation levels.

    “Our novel alternative to punishment builds on the reciprocal nature of the trust—the fact that people reciprocate voluntary trust68—as well as the conditional nature of human cooperation—the fact that negative reciprocity can be switched to positive reciprocity given sufficient cooperation levels44,69–71.”

    From Cooperation without punishment (2023) · cites this paper as [70]

    The Model section says simulated agents donate when donations in the previous round exceed their individual threshold, and the Discussion says stable cooperation requires a critical amount of cooperation. This supports a threshold-dependent shift toward cooperation, but the paper does not establish that negative reciprocity in humans switches to positive reciprocity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [34]Nowak MA, Sigmund K 2005 Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 437, 1291– 1298. (10.1038/nature04131) 16251955 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [42]Battu B, Srinivasan N 2020 Data from: Evolution of conditional cooperation in public good games Dryad Digital Repository. See https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.f7m0cfxrc. PMC7277267 32537191 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Battu, B., & Srinivasan, N.
Affiliations
University of Allahabad (IN)
Corresponding author
  • Battu, Balaraju
  • Srinivasan, Narayanan
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2020-05
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
191567
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3025188972
Cited by
15
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cadmus - EUI Research Repository (European University Institute) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
conditional cooperation, public goods game, repeated games, social dilemmas, imitation, role models, prestige, reputation, payoff information, social values, evolution of cooperation

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