The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Evolution of Trust and Cooperation between Strangers: A Computational Model
Abstract
Social and economic exchanges often occur between strangers who cannot rely on past behavior or the prospect of future interactions to establish mutual trust. Game theorists formalize this problem as a one-shot prisoner's dilemma and predict mutual noncooperation. Recent studies, however, challenge this conclusion. If the game provides an option to exit (or to refuse to play), strategies based on projection (of a player's intentions) and detection (of the intentions of a stranger) can confer a cooperator's advantage. Yet previous research has not found a way for these strategies to evolve from a random start or to recover from invasion by aggressive strategies that feign trustworthiness. The authors use computer simulation to show how trust and cooperation between strangers can evolve without formal or informal social controls. The outcome decisively depends, however, on two structural conditions : the payoff for refusing to play, and the embeddedness of interaction. Effective norms for trusting strangers emerge locally, in exchanges between neighbors, and then diffuse through weak ties to outsiders
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
A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993) · Nature · doi:10.1038/364056a0 · Cited by 1,797
Cited by
On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00041-7 · Cited by 1,200
Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. (2007) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307301032 · Cited by 335
Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0872 · Cited by 263
Flustered and faithful: Embarrassment as a signal of prosociality.
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Keltner, D. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025403 · Cited by 167
Trust in God and Trust in Man: The Ambivalent Role of Religion in Shaping Dimensions of Social Trust
Welch, M. R., Sikkink, D., Sartain, E., & Bond, C. (2004) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2004.00238.x · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Macy, M. W., & Skvoretz, J.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 638
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976436153
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 25.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.