Literature DB >> 14604582

Indirect reciprocity among imperfect individuals.

Michael A Fishman1.   

Abstract

Reciprocal cooperation occurs when the overall benefits of receiving help exceed the costs of donating help (Q. Rev. Biol. 46 (197) 35). That is, individuals in good condition--for whom the pertinent costs are relatively small; donate help in order to secure reciprocity in their hour of need--when the benefits of receiving a donation are large. Consequently, reciprocity occurs among individuals who occasionally need help. In particular, such individuals will be unable to help others, no matter how deserving, when in need of help themselves--involuntary defection. This paper deals with the effects of involuntary defection in the context of a specific model of indirect reciprocity (i.e. reciprocal altruism that is directed toward all the cooperative members of the community) due to Nowak and Sigmund (J. Theor. Biol.194 (1998b) 561: Sections 2-4). In that model, the authors formulate the decision rules for conditional cooperation in the context of indirect reciprocity, and demonstrate that these decision rules can account for a long-term persistence of cooperation. Here we show that addition of involuntary defection to the decision rules formulated by Nowak and Sigmund results in indirect reciprocity that is evolutionary stable under appropriate conditions. Moreover, for a wide range of parameter values, evolutionary stability of cooperation requires a mixture of conditional- and unconditional-altruist behaviors. To recollect, unconditional altruist strategy can be viewed as conditional altruist strategy sans the ability to decide when the help-soliciting individual should be refused help. That is, given involuntary defection, stability of cooperation requires an occasional forgiveness, if only by default, of a failure to donate help. Thus, we see that evolutionary stable indirect reciprocity does not require perfection in either the ability to assess the merits of the help-soliciting individuals, or the ability to donate help when it is merited. On the contrary, we are forced to conclude that reciprocity, at least in the current case, is stable only among imperfect individuals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14604582     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5193(03)00246-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Theor Biol        ISSN: 0022-5193            Impact factor:   2.691


  18 in total

1.  Indirect reciprocity, image scoring, and moral hazard.

Authors:  Hannelore Brandt; Karl Sigmund
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-02-04       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Reputation and the evolution of cooperation in sizable groups.

Authors:  Shinsuke Suzuki; Eizo Akiyama
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2005-07-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Five rules for the evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Upstream reciprocity and the evolution of gratitude.

Authors:  Martin A Nowak; Sébastien Roch
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-03-07       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Transforming the dilemma.

Authors:  Christine Taylor; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  2007-08-17       Impact factor: 3.694

6.  The excuse principle can maintain cooperation through forgivable defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game.

Authors:  Indrikis Krams; Hanna Kokko; Jolanta Vrublevska; Mikus Abolins-Abols; Tatjana Krama; Markus J Rantala
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-07-17       Impact factor: 5.349

7.  Social norm complexity and past reputations in the evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  Fernando P Santos; Francisco C Santos; Jorge M Pacheco
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Indirect reciprocity and the evolution of "moral signals"

Authors:  Rory Smead
Journal:  Biol Philos       Date:  2009-07-09       Impact factor: 1.461

9.  Dynamic modulation of social influence by indirect reciprocity.

Authors:  Joshua Zonca; Anna Folsø; Alessandra Sciutti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Groupwise information sharing promotes ingroup favoritism in indirect reciprocity.

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Nakamura; Naoki Masuda
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2012-11-05       Impact factor: 3.260

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.