Collective punishment is more effective than collective reward for promoting cooperation

Sociology and Political Science Economics Social Sciences Public good Epistemology Social psychology Article Agricultural and Biological Sciences 03 medical and health sciences Game Theory Punishment Reward Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology State (computer science) Genetics Microeconomics Humans Psychology Social dilemma Punishment (psychology) Cooperative Behavior Symbiosis Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics Order (exchange) 0303 health sciences Evolutionary Dynamics of Genetic Adaptation and Mutation Free rider problem Life Sciences Mechanism (biology) Stochastic game Models, Theoretical Altruism Biological Evolution Computer science FOS: Philosophy, ethics and religion FOS: Psychology Algorithm Cooperation Philosophy FOS: Biological sciences Impact of Pollinator Decline on Ecosystems and Agriculture Evolution of Cooperation and Altruism in Social Systems Finance
DOI: 10.1038/srep17752 Publication Date: 2015-12-04T10:02:22Z
ABSTRACT
AbstractCollective punishment and reward are usually regarded as two potential mechanisms to explain the evolution of cooperation. Both scenarios, however, seem problematic to understand cooperative behavior, because they can raise the second-order free-rider problem and many organisms are not able to discriminate less cooperating individuals. Even though they have been proved to increase cooperation, there has been a debate about which one being more effective. To address this issue, we resort to the N-player evolutionary snowdrift game (NESG), where a collective punishment/reward mechanism is added by allowing some players to display punishment/reward towards all remaining players. By means of numerous simulations and analyses, we find that collective punishment is more effective in promoting cooperation for a relatively high initial frequency of cooperation or for a relatively small group. When the intensity of punishment exceeds a certain threshold, a stable state of full cooperation emerges for both small and large groups. In contrast, such state does not appear for large groups playing a NESG with reward mechanism. In the case of mutualistic interactions, finally, our results show the new payoff with collective punishment/reward can lead to the coexistence of cooperators and defectors when discrimination between these two is not possible.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
Coming soon ....
REFERENCES (89)
CITATIONS (37)
EXTERNAL LINKS
PlumX Metrics
RECOMMENDATIONS
FAIR ASSESSMENT
Coming soon ....
JUPYTER LAB
Coming soon ....