Literature DB >> 22465111

Stochastic evolutionary dynamics resolve the Traveler's Dilemma.

Michael L Manapat1, David G Rand, Christina Pawlowitsch, Martin A Nowak.   

Abstract

Behavior in social dilemmas is often inconsistent with the predictions of classical game theory: people (and a wide variety of other organisms) are more cooperative than might be expected. Here we consider behavior in one such social dilemma, the Traveler's Dilemma, that has received considerable attention in the economics literature but is little known among theoretical biologists. The rules of the game are as follows. Two players each choose a value between R and M, where 0<R<M. If the players choose the same value, both receive that amount. If the players choose different values v(1) and v(2), where v(1)<v(2), then the player choosing v(1) receives v(1)+R and the player choosing v(2) receives v(1)-R. While the players would maximize their payoffs by both choosing the largest allowed value, M, the Nash equilibrium is to choose the smallest allowed value, R. In behavioral experiments, however, people generally choose values much larger than the minimum and the deviation from the expected equilibrium decreases with R. In this paper, we show that the cooperative behavior observed in the Traveler's Dilemma can be explained in an evolutionary framework. We study stochastic evolutionary dynamics in finite populations with varying intensity of selection and varying mutation rate. We derive analytic results showing that strategies choosing high values can be favored when selection is weak. More generally, selection favors strategies that choose high values if R is small (relative to M) and strategies that choose low values if R is large. Finally, we show that a two-parameter model involving the intensity of selection and the mutation rate can quantitatively reproduce data that from a Traveler's Dilemma experiment. These results demonstrate the power of evolutionary game theory for explaining human behavior in contexts that are challenging for standard economic game theory.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22465111      PMCID: PMC3348410          DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.03.014

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


  36 in total

1.  Evolution of cooperation between individuals.

Authors:  A Lotem; M A Fishman; L Stone
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1999-07-15       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity.

Authors:  Hisashi Ohtsuki; Yoh Iwasa
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2005-09-19       Impact factor: 2.691

3.  Punishing and abstaining for public goods.

Authors:  Hannelore Brandt; Christoph Hauert; Karl Sigmund
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-30       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Evolutionary cycles of cooperation and defection.

Authors:  Lorens A Imhof; Drew Fudenberg; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-07-25       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Evolutionary escape from the prisoner's dilemma.

Authors:  Lee Worden; Simon A Levin
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2006-10-18       Impact factor: 2.691

6.  Evolutionary dynamics in finite populations can explain the full range of cooperative behaviors observed in the centipede game.

Authors:  David G Rand; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2012-01-14       Impact factor: 2.691

7.  The evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  R Axelrod; W D Hamilton
Journal:  Science       Date:  1981-03-27       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Analytical results for individual and group selection of any intensity.

Authors:  Arne Traulsen; Noam Shoresh; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Bull Math Biol       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 1.758

9.  How should we define goodness?--reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity.

Authors:  Hisashi Ohtsuki; Yoh Iwasa
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  2004-11-07       Impact factor: 2.691

10.  Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment.

Authors:  Hisashi Ohtsuki; Yoh Iwasa; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  6 in total

1.  Evolution of fairness in the one-shot anonymous Ultimatum Game.

Authors:  David G Rand; Corina E Tarnita; Hisashi Ohtsuki; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  A random world is a fair world.

Authors:  James H Fowler; Nicholas A Christakis
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-01-28       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Evolution of Cooperation in Social Dilemmas on Complex Networks.

Authors:  Swami Iyer; Timothy Killingback
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 4.475

4.  A model of human cooperation in social dilemmas.

Authors:  Valerio Capraro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Evolution of cooperation in spatial traveler's dilemma game.

Authors:  Rong-Hua Li; Jeffrey Xu Yu; Jiyuan Lin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  An application of evolutionary game theory to social dilemmas: the traveler's dilemma and the minimum effort coordination game.

Authors:  Swami Iyer; Joshua Reyes; Timothy Killingback
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.