Literature DB >> 21463459

Co-evolution of behaviour and social network structure promotes human cooperation.

Katrin Fehl1, Daniel J van der Post, Dirk Semmann.   

Abstract

The ubiquity of cooperation in nature is puzzling because cooperators can be exploited by defectors. Recent theoretical work shows that if dynamic networks define interactions between individuals, cooperation is favoured by natural selection. To address this, we compare cooperative behaviour in multiple but independent repeated games between participants in static and dynamic networks. In the latter, participants could break their links after each social interaction. As predicted, we find higher levels of cooperation in dynamic networks. Through biased link breaking (i.e. to defectors) participants affected their social environment. We show that this link-breaking behaviour leads to substantial network clustering and we find primarily cooperators within these clusters. This assortment is remarkable because it occurred on top of behavioural assortment through direct reciprocity and beyond the perception of participants, and represents a self-organized pattern. Our results highlight the importance of the interaction between ecological context and selective pressures on cooperation.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd/CNRS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21463459     DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01615.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Lett        ISSN: 1461-023X            Impact factor:   9.492


  60 in total

1.  Heterogeneous networks do not promote cooperation when humans play a Prisoner's Dilemma.

Authors:  Carlos Gracia-Lázaro; Alfredo Ferrer; Gonzalo Ruiz; Alfonso Tarancón; José A Cuesta; Angel Sánchez; Yamir Moreno
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Individual variation behind the evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  Zoltán Barta
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  The effects of reputational and social knowledge on cooperation.

Authors:  Edoardo Gallo; Chang Yan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Dynamic network partnerships and social contagion drive cooperation.

Authors:  Roslyn Dakin; T Brandt Ryder
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 5.349

5.  Expert Game experiment predicts emergence of trust in professional communication networks.

Authors:  Kristian Moss Bendtsen; Florian Uekermann; Jan O Haerter
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Topological effects of network structure on long-term social network dynamics in a wild mammal.

Authors:  Amiyaal Ilany; Andrew S Booms; Kay E Holekamp
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 9.492

7.  Conditional cooperation can hinder network reciprocity.

Authors:  Dirk Semmann
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-07-27       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Offspring social network structure predicts fitness in families.

Authors:  Nick J Royle; Thomas W Pike; Philipp Heeb; Heinz Richner; Mathias Kölliker
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Cooperation and assortativity with dynamic partner updating.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Siddharth Suri; Duncan J Watts
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Learning dynamics explains human behaviour in prisoner's dilemma on networks.

Authors:  Giulio Cimini; Angel Sánchez
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 4.118

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.