Interactions between personality and institutions in cooperative behaviour in humans

Laboratory attempts to identify relationships between personality and cooperative behaviour in humans have generated inconsistent results. This may partially stem from different practices in psychology and economics laboratories, with both hypothetical players and incentives typical only in the former. Another possible cause is insufficient consideration of the contexts within which social dilemmas occur. Real social dilemmas are often governed by institutions that change the payoff structure via rewards and punishments. However, such ‘strong situations’ will not necessarily suppress the effects of personality. On the contrary, they may affect some personalities differentially. Extraversion and neuroticism, reflecting variation in reward and punishment sensitivity, should predict modification of cooperative behaviour following changes to the payoff structure. We investigate interactions between personality and a punishment situation via two versions of a public goods game. We find that, even in a strong situation, personality matters and, moreover, it is related to strategic shifts in cooperation. Extraversion is associated with a shift from free-riding to cooperation in the presence of punishment, agreeableness is associated with initially higher contributions regardless of game, and, contrary to our predictions, neuroticism is associated with lower contributions regardless of game. Results should lead to new hypotheses that relate variation in biological functioning to individual differences in cooperative behaviour and that consider three-way interactions among personality, institutional context and sociocultural background.     

Spatial dynamics,social norms,and the opportunity of the commons

The most important message of Levin (Ecol Res 21:328–333, 2006) is that “Ecologists and economists have much incentive for interaction.” Recent studies that account for evolutionary processes and local interactions support this view by obtaining results that run counter to conventional wisdom within resource economics. A second major message of the article is that to meet environmental challenges, humanity must develop social norms that enhance cooperative responses. Successful examples of resource management systems back up norms with economic incentives: rewards for good behavior and punishments for bad. Economic incentives are especially important if rapid and large changes in human behavior are desired.     

Asynchronous snowdrift game with synergistic effect as a model of cooperation

The snowdrift (or chicken) game emerges as a new paradigm inthe study of nonkin cooperation in animals. Many situations,for example, cooperative hunting, group foraging, territorialdefense, predator watching, or parental care, can be adequatelydescribed as a snowdrift game. In this paper, we investigatethe asynchronous version of the game in which, contrary to therather unrealistic assumption of simultaneous moves, one ofthe players acts first and the other responds by knowing itsdecision. Players are assigned to be first or second moversrandomly and with the same probability. We found that both asynergistic effect of cooperation (i.e., cooperative effortis better than the sum of the individual efforts) and populationstructure (low dispersal, spatial confinement, or group formation)are crucial for mutual cooperation to emerge. Otherwise, onlyone of the players will carry the burden of cooperation.     

A functional MRI study on how oxytocin affects decision making in social dilemmas: Cooperate as long as it pays off,aggress only when you think you can win

We investigate if the neuropeptide oxytocin (OT), known to moderate social behaviour, influences strategic decision making in social dilemmas by facilitating the integration of incentives and social cues. Participants (N = 29) played two economic games with different incentive structures in the fMRI scanner after receiving OT or placebo (following a double blind, within-subject design). Pictures of angry or neutral faces (the social cues) were displayed alongside the game matrices. Consistent with a priori hypotheses based on the modulatory role of OT in mesolimbic dopaminergic brain regions, the results indicate that, compared to placebo, OT significantly increases the activation of the nucleus accumbens during an assurance (coordination) game that rewards mutual cooperation. This increases appetitive motivation so that cooperative behaviour is facilitated for risk averse individuals. OT also significantly attenuates the amygdala, thereby reducing the orienting response to social cues. The corresponding change in behaviour is only apparent in the chicken (or anti-coordination) game, where aggression is incentivized but fatal if the partner also aggresses. Because of this ambiguity, decision making can be improved by additional information, and OT steers decisions in the chicken game in accordance with the valence of the facial cue: aggress when face is neutral; retreat when it is angry. Through its combined influence on amygdala and nucleus accumbens, OT improves the selection of a cooperative or aggressive strategy in function of the best match between the incentives of the game and the social cues present in the decision environment.     

具资源效应的非对称“鹰鸽博弈”进化稳定分析

解释合作行为的演化一直是生命科学及社会学研究的重要问题之一。经典理论研究大都关注于合作双方对等的情况。然而,在合作系统中的合作双方通常是不对等的,由此可带来博弈双方支付的非对称并影响合作双方的合作行为。该文基于经典的"鹰鸽博弈"模型,同时考虑非对称性相互关系和资源压力的影响,建立了具有强弱之分的四策略(实力强且合作、实力强且不合作、实力弱且合作和实力弱且不合作)非对称博弈模型。结合演化博弈理论及动力系统稳定性理论分析发现:在系统达到稳定状态时,四种策略的比例变化显著地依赖于博弈双方的强弱之比、资源压力及冲突的单位成本收益。对模型的进一步分析显示,当资源充足时,实力强且合作的比例与冲突的单位成本收益负相关;而实力强且不合作、实力弱且不合作的比例都与冲突的单位成本收益正相关,并且随着系统强弱对比增加,实力强且合作及实力强且不合作的比例均增加,而实力弱且不合作的比例将减小。当资源短缺时,模型得出一个有趣的结论,即随着博弈双方的强弱之比的变化,经典的"智猪博弈"与"鹰鸽博弈"可相互转化,该结论将能为不同均衡状态之间的相互转化给出一个动力学解释。     

Evolution of cooperation with shared costs and benefits

The quest to determine how cooperation evolves can be based on evolutionary game theory, in spite of the fact that evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) for most non-zero-sum games are not cooperative. We analyse the evolution of cooperation for a family of evolutionary games involving shared costs and benefits with a continuum of strategies from non-cooperation to total cooperation. This cost-benefit game allows the cooperator to share in the benefit of a cooperative act, and the recipient to be burdened with a share of the cooperator's cost. The cost-benefit game encompasses the Prisoner's Dilemma, Snowdrift game and Partial Altruism. The models produce ESS solutions of total cooperation, partial cooperation, non-cooperation and coexistence between cooperation and non-cooperation. Cooperation emerges from an interplay between the nonlinearities in the cost and benefit functions. If benefits increase at a decelerating rate and costs increase at an accelerating rate with the degree of cooperation, then the ESS has an intermediate level of cooperation. The game also exhibits non-ESS points such as unstable minima, convergent-stable minima and unstable maxima. The emergence of cooperative behaviour in this game represents enlightened self-interest, whereas non-cooperative solutions illustrate the Tragedy of the Commons. Games having either a stable maximum or a stable minimum have the property that small changes in the incentive structure (model parameter values) or culture (starting frequencies of strategies) result in correspondingly small changes in the degree of cooperation. Conversely, with unstable maxima or unstable minima, small changes in the incentive structure or culture can result in a switch from non-cooperation to total cooperation (and vice versa). These solutions identify when human or animal societies have the potential for cooperation and whether cooperation is robust or fragile.     

The hard problem of cooperation

Based on individual variation in cooperative inclinations, we define the “hard problem of cooperation” as that of achieving high levels of cooperation in a group of non-cooperative types. Can the hard problem be solved by institutions with monitoring and sanctions? In a laboratory experiment we find that the answer is affirmative if the institution is imposed on the group but negative if development of the institution is left to the group to vote on. In the experiment, participants were divided into groups of either cooperative types or non-cooperative types depending on their behavior in a public goods game. In these homogeneous groups they repeatedly played a public goods game regulated by an institution that incorporated several of the key properties identified by Ostrom: operational rules, monitoring, rewards, punishments, and (in one condition) change of rules. When change of rules was not possible and punishments were set to be high, groups of both types generally abided by operational rules demanding high contributions to the common good, and thereby achieved high levels of payoffs. Under less severe rules, both types of groups did worse but non-cooperative types did worst. Thus, non-cooperative groups profited the most from being governed by an institution demanding high contributions and employing high punishments. Nevertheless, in a condition where change of rules through voting was made possible, development of the institution in this direction was more often voted down in groups of non-cooperative types. We discuss the relevance of the hard problem and fit our results into a bigger picture of institutional and individual determinants of cooperative behavior.     

Indirect reciprocity under incomplete observation

Indirect reciprocity, in which individuals help others with a good reputation but not those with a bad reputation, is a mechanism for cooperation in social dilemma situations when individuals do not repeatedly interact with the same partners. In a relatively large society where indirect reciprocity is relevant, individuals may not know each other's reputation even indirectly. Previous studies investigated the situations where individuals playing the game have to determine the action possibly without knowing others' reputations. Nevertheless, the possibility that observers of the game, who generate the reputation of the interacting players, assign reputations without complete information about them has been neglected. Because an individual acts as an interacting player and as an observer on different occasions if indirect reciprocity is endogenously sustained in a society, the incompleteness of information may affect either role. We examine the game of indirect reciprocity when the reputations of players are not necessarily known to observers and to interacting players. We find that the trustful discriminator, which cooperates with good and unknown players and defects against bad players, realizes cooperative societies under seven social norms. Among the seven social norms, three of the four suspicious norms under which cooperation (defection) to unknown players leads to a good (bad) reputation enable cooperation down to a relatively small observation probability. In contrast, the three trustful norms under which both cooperation and defection to unknown players lead to a good reputation are relatively efficient.     

Exit,Punishment and Rewards in Commons Dilemmas: An Experimental Study

Commons dilemmas are interaction situations where a common good is provided or exploited by a group of individuals so that optimal collective outcomes clash with private interests. Although in these situations, social norms and institutions exist that might help individuals to cooperate, little is known about the interaction effects between positive and negative incentives and exit options by individuals. We performed a modified public good game experiment to examine the effect of exit, rewards and punishment, as well as the interplay between exit and rewards and punishment. We found that punishment had a stronger effect than rewards on cooperation if considered by itself, whereas rewards had a stronger effect when combined with voluntary participation. This can be explained in terms of the ‘framing effect’, i.e., as the combination of exit and rewards might induce people to attach higher expected payoffs to cooperative strategies and expect better behaviour from others.     

Social Value Induction and Cooperation in the Centipede Game

The Centipede game provides a dynamic model of cooperation and competition in repeated dyadic interactions. Two experiments investigated psychological factors driving cooperation in 20 rounds of a Centipede game with significant monetary incentives and anonymous and random re-pairing of players after every round. The main purpose of the research was to determine whether the pattern of strategic choices observed when no specific social value orientation is experimentally induced—the standard condition in all previous investigations of behavior in the Centipede and most other experimental games—is essentially individualistic, the orthodox game-theoretic assumption being that players are individualistically motivated in the absence of any specific motivational induction. Participants in whom no specific state social value orientation was induced exhibited moderately non-cooperative play that differed significantly from the pattern found when an individualistic orientation was induced. In both experiments, the neutral treatment condition, in which no orientation was induced, elicited competitive behavior resembling behavior in the condition in which a competitive orientation was explicitly induced. Trait social value orientation, measured with a questionnaire, influenced cooperation differently depending on the experimentally induced state social value orientation. Cooperative trait social value orientation was a significant predictor of cooperation and, to a lesser degree, experimentally induced competitive orientation was a significant predictor of non-cooperation. The experimental results imply that the standard assumption of individualistic motivation in experimental games may not be valid, and that the results of such investigations need to take into account the possibility that players are competitively motivated.     

Friendship, cliquishness, and the emergence of cooperation

The evolution of cooperation is a central problem in biology and the social sciences. While theoretical work using the iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) has shown that cooperation among non-kin can be sustained among reciprocal strategies (i.e. tit-for-tat), these results are sensitive to errors in strategy execution, cyclical invasions by free riders, and the specific ecology of strategies. Moreover, the IPD assumes that a strategy's probability of playing the PD game with other individuals is independent of the decisions made by others. Here, we remove the assumption of independent pairing by studying a more plausible cooperative dilemma in which players can preferentially interact with a limited set of known partners and also deploy longer-term accounting strategies that can counteract the effects of random errors. We show that cooperative strategies readily emerge and persist in a range of noisy environments, with successful cooperative strategies (henceforth, cliquers) maintaining medium-term memories for partners and low thresholds for acceptable cooperation (i.e. forgiveness). The success of these strategies relies on their cliquishness-a propensity to defect with strangers if they already have an adequate number of partners. Notably, this combination of medium-term accounting, forgiveness, and cliquishness fits with empirical studies of friendship and other long-term relationships among humans.     

Evolution of Conformity in Social Dilemmas

People often deviate from their individual Nash equilibrium strategy in game experiments based on the prisoner’s dilemma (PD) game and the public goods game (PGG), whereas conditional cooperation, or conformity, is supported by the data from these experiments. In a complicated environment with no obvious “dominant” strategy, conformists who choose the average strategy of the other players in their group could be able to avoid risk by guaranteeing their income will be close to the group average. In this paper, we study the repeated PD game and the repeated m-person PGG, where individuals’ strategies are restricted to the set of conforming strategies. We define a conforming strategy by two parameters, initial action in the game and the influence of the other players’ choices in the previous round. We are particularly interested in the tit-for-tat (TFT) strategy, which is the well-known conforming strategy in theoretical and empirical studies. In both the PD game and the PGG, TFT can prevent the invasion of non-cooperative strategy if the expected number of rounds exceeds a critical value. The stability analysis of adaptive dynamics shows that conformity in general promotes the evolution of cooperation, and that a regime of cooperation can be established in an AllD population through TFT-like strategies. These results provide insight into the emergence of cooperation in social dilemma games.     

Subtle social cues, explicit incentives and cooperation in social dilemmas

Subtle contextual social cues and the explicit incentive structure of social dilemmas are two important, but fundamentally different classes of determinants of cooperative behavior. The former provides subjective social information regarding the likelihood of attaining mutual cooperation by shaping one's expectations of the cooperative behavior of the interacting party. The latter provides objective, ecological information about the strategic opportunities offered by the situation. In prior research, both classes have generally been studied in isolation, hampering insight into how social judgments and ecological opportunities interact in shaping cooperation. To fill in this gap we set up a repeated mixed-motive game in which we manipulate subtle social cues and the incentive structure of the game simultaneously. We develop the hypothesis that social information is less important in shaping mutual cooperation of two team members when the incentive structure is such that it contains natural synergies. In contrast, when the incentive structure offers no synergy, “rational contracting” is hampered and social cues are essential for mutual cooperation to develop. The evidence we present in this paper is consistent with this hypothesis.     

Action being character: a promising perspective on the solution concept of game theory

The inconsistency of predictions from solution concepts of conventional game theory with experimental observations is an enduring question. These solution concepts are based on the canonical rationality assumption that people are exclusively self-regarding utility maximizers. In this article, we think this assumption is problematic and, instead, assume that rational economic agents act as if they were maximizing their implicit utilities, which turns out to be a natural extension of the canonical rationality assumption. Implicit utility is defined by a player's character to reflect his personal weighting between cooperative, individualistic, and competitive social value orientations. The player who actually faces an implicit game chooses his strategy based on the common belief about the character distribution for a general player and the self-estimation of his own character, and he is not concerned about which strategies other players will choose and will never feel regret about his decision. It is shown by solving five paradigmatic games, the Dictator game, the Ultimatum game, the Prisoner's Dilemma game, the Public Goods game, and the Battle of the Sexes game, that the framework of implicit game and its corresponding solution concept, implicit equilibrium, based on this alternative assumption have potential for better explaining people's actual behaviors in social decision making situations.     

Criminal Defectors Lead to the Emergence of Cooperation in an Experimental,Adversarial Game

While the evolution of cooperation has been widely studied, little attention has been devoted to adversarial settings wherein one actor can directly harm another. Recent theoretical work addresses this issue, introducing an adversarial game in which the emergence of cooperation is heavily reliant on the presence of “Informants,” actors who defect at first-order by harming others, but who cooperate at second-order by punishing other defectors. We experimentally study this adversarial environment in the laboratory with human subjects to test whether Informants are indeed critical for the emergence of cooperation. We find in these experiments that, even more so than predicted by theory, Informants are crucial for the emergence and sustenance of a high cooperation state. A key lesson is that successfully reaching and maintaining a low defection society may require the cultivation of criminals who will also aid in the punishment of others.     

Replicator dynamics of reward & reputation in public goods games

Public goods games have become the mathematical metaphor for game theoretical investigations of cooperative behavior in groups of interacting individuals. Cooperation is a conundrum because cooperators make a sacrifice to benefit others at some cost to themselves. Exploiters or defectors reap the benefits and forgo costs. Despite the fact that groups of cooperators outperform groups of defectors, Darwinian selection or utilitarian principles based on rational choice should favor defectors. In order to overcome this social dilemma, much effort has been expended for investigations pertaining to punishment and sanctioning measures against defectors. Interestingly, the complementary approach to create positive incentives and to reward cooperation has received considerably less attention—despite being heavily advocated in education and social sciences for increasing productivity or preventing conflicts. Here we show that rewards can indeed stimulate cooperation in interaction groups of arbitrary size but, in contrast to punishment, fail to stabilize it. In both cases, however, reputation is essential. The combination of reward and reputation result in complex dynamics dominated by unpredictable oscillations.     

The Effect of Power Asymmetries on Cooperation and Punishment in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

Recent work has suggested that punishment is detrimental because punishment provokes retaliation, not cooperation, resulting in lower overall payoffs. These findings may stem from the unrealistic assumption that all players are equal: in reality individuals are expected to vary in the power with which they can punish defectors. Here, we allowed strong players to interact with weak players in an iterated prisoner''s dilemma game with punishment. Defecting players were most likely to switch to cooperation if the partner cooperated: adding punishment yielded no additional benefit and, under some circumstances, increased the chance that the partner would both defect and retaliate against the punisher. Our findings show that, in a two-player game, cooperation begets cooperation and that punishment does not seem to yield any additional benefits. Further work should explore whether strong punishers might prevail in multi-player games.     

Leading the Game,Losing the Competition: Identifying Leaders and Followers in a Repeated Game

We explore a new method for identifying leaders and followers, LF, in repeated games by analyzing an experimental, repeated (50 rounds) game where Row player shifts the payoff between small and large values–a type of “investor” and Column player determines who gets the payoff–a type of “manager”. We found that i) the Investor (Row) most often is a leading player and the manager (Column) a follower. The longer the Investor leads the game, the higher is both player’s payoff. Surprisingly however, it is always the Manager that achieves the largest payoff. ii) The game has an efficient cooperative strategy where the players alternate in receiving a high payoff, but the players never identify, or accept, that strategy. iii) Under the assumption that the information used by the players is closely associated with the leader- follower sequence, and that information is available before the player’s decisions are made, the players switched LF- strategy primarily as a function of information on the Investor’s investment and moves and secondly as a function of the Manager’s payoff.     

Incentives and opportunism: from the carrot to the stick

Cooperation in public good games is greatly promoted by positive and negative incentives. In this paper, we use evolutionary game dynamics to study the evolution of opportunism (the readiness to be swayed by incentives) and the evolution of trust (the propensity to cooperate in the absence of information on the co-players). If both positive and negative incentives are available, evolution leads to a population where defectors are punished and players cooperate, except when they can get away with defection. Rewarding behaviour does not become fixed, but can play an essential role in catalysing the emergence of cooperation, especially if the information level is low.     

Evolution of Cooperation in Spatial Traveler's Dilemma Game

Traveler''s dilemma (TD) is one of social dilemmas which has been well studied in the economics community, but it is attracted little attention in the physics community. The TD game is a two-person game. Each player can select an integer value between and () as a pure strategy. If both of them select the same value, the payoff to them will be that value. If the players select different values, say and (), then the payoff to the player who chooses the small value will be and the payoff to the other player will be . We term the player who selects a large value as the cooperator, and the one who chooses a small value as the defector. The reason is that if both of them select large values, it will result in a large total payoff. The Nash equilibrium of the TD game is to choose the smallest value . However, in previous behavioral studies, players in TD game typically select values that are much larger than , and the average selected value exhibits an inverse relationship with . To explain such anomalous behavior, in this paper, we study the evolution of cooperation in spatial traveler''s dilemma game where the players are located on a square lattice and each player plays TD games with his neighbors. Players in our model can adopt their neighbors'' strategies following two standard models of spatial game dynamics. Monte-Carlo simulation is applied to our model, and the results show that the cooperation level of the system, which is proportional to the average value of the strategies, decreases with increasing until is greater than the critical value where cooperation vanishes. Our findings indicate that spatial reciprocity promotes the evolution of cooperation in TD game and the spatial TD game model can interpret the anomalous behavior observed in previous behavioral experiments.