Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans

Human populations are both highly cooperative and highly organized. Human interactions are not random but rather are structured in social networks. Importantly, ties in these networks often are dynamic, changing in response to the behavior of one's social partners. This dynamic structure permits an important form of conditional action that has been explored theoretically but has received little empirical attention: People can respond to the cooperation and defection of those around them by making or breaking network links. Here, we present experimental evidence of the power of using strategic link formation and dissolution, and the network modification it entails, to stabilize cooperation in sizable groups. Our experiments explore large-scale cooperation, where subjects’ cooperative actions are equally beneficial to all those with whom they interact. Consistent with previous research, we find that cooperation decays over time when social networks are shuffled randomly every round or are fixed across all rounds. We also find that, when networks are dynamic but are updated only infrequently, cooperation again fails. However, when subjects can update their network connections frequently, we see a qualitatively different outcome: Cooperation is maintained at a high level through network rewiring. Subjects preferentially break links with defectors and form new links with cooperators, creating an incentive to cooperate and leading to substantial changes in network structure. Our experiments confirm the predictions of a set of evolutionary game theoretic models and demonstrate the important role that dynamic social networks can play in supporting large-scale human cooperation.

[1]  A. Rapoport Contribution to the theory of random and biased nets , 1957 .

[2]  R. R. Miller,et al.  No play: a means of conflict resolution. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  J. Davis Clustering and Hierarchy in Interpersonal Relations: Testing Two Graph Theoretical Models on 742 Sociomatrices , 1970 .

[4]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

[5]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Incomplete Information , 1986 .

[6]  P. Richerson,et al.  The evolution of reciprocity in sizable groups. , 1988, Journal of theoretical biology.

[7]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible , 1992, American Political Science Review.

[8]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary games and spatial chaos , 1992, Nature.

[9]  M. Nowak,et al.  Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations , 1992, Nature.

[10]  R. Dawes,et al.  Social welfare, cooperators' advantage, and the option of not playing the game. , 1993 .

[11]  B Skyrms,et al.  A dynamic model of social network formation. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  M. Kuperman,et al.  Social games in a social network. , 2000, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[13]  C. Hauert,et al.  Replicator dynamics for optional public good games. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  M. Milinski,et al.  Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’ , 2002, Nature.

[15]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.

[16]  S. Bornholdt,et al.  Coevolutionary games on networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[17]  C. Hauert,et al.  Volunteering as Red Queen Mechanism for Cooperation in Public Goods Games , 2002, Science.

[18]  R. Cressman Evolutionary Dynamics and Extensive Form Games , 2003 .

[19]  M. Milinski,et al.  Volunteering leads to rock–paper–scissors dynamics in a public goods game , 2003, Nature.

[20]  David Masclet Ostracism in work teams: a public good experiment , 2003 .

[21]  R. Boyd,et al.  The evolution of altruistic punishment , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Roberto Ricciuti,et al.  Punishment and Counter-punishment in Public Goods Games: Can we still govern ourselves? , 2004 .

[23]  Víctor M Eguíluz,et al.  Coevolution of dynamical states and interactions in dynamic networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  L. Putterman,et al.  Cooperation Under the Threat of Expulsion in a Public Goods Experiment , 2005 .

[25]  F. C. Santos,et al.  Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[26]  BÓ Pedrodal,et al.  Cooperation under the Shadow of the Future : Experimental Evidence from Infinitely Repeated Games , 2005 .

[27]  Louis Putterman,et al.  Can second-order punishment deter perverse punishment? , 2006 .

[28]  Bettina Rockenbach,et al.  The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment , 2006, Nature.

[29]  M. Kearns,et al.  An Experimental Study of the Coloring Problem on Human Subject Networks , 2006, Science.

[30]  Matthias Sutter,et al.  Choosing the Stick or the Carrot? Endogenous Institutional Choice in Social Dilemma Situations , 2006 .

[31]  Francisco C. Santos,et al.  Cooperation Prevails When Individuals Adjust Their Social Ties , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[32]  H. Ohtsuki,et al.  A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks , 2006, Nature.

[33]  Robert Shupp,et al.  The Effect of Rewards and Sanctions in Provision of Public Goods , 2006 .

[34]  C. Hauert,et al.  Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment , 2007, Science.

[35]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[36]  Alessandra Cassar,et al.  Coordination and Cooperation in Local, Random and Small World Networks: Experimental Evidence , 2002, Games Econ. Behav..

[37]  N. Christakis,et al.  The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network Over 32 Years , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  Nikos Nikiforakis,et al.  Punishment and Counter-punishment in Public Good Games: Can We Still Govern Ourselves? , 2005 .

[39]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[40]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Quantifying social group evolution , 2007, Nature.

[41]  David G. Rand,et al.  Winners don’t punish , 2008, Nature.

[42]  Hawaii,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S6 Tables S1 and S2 Database S1 Antisocial Punishment across Societies , 2022 .

[43]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Repeated games and direct reciprocity under active linking. , 2008, Journal of theoretical biology.

[44]  C. Hauert,et al.  Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks. , 2008, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[45]  D. Helbing,et al.  The outbreak of cooperation among success-driven individuals under noisy conditions , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  N. Christakis,et al.  A Model of Genetic Variation in Human Social Networks , 2010 .

[47]  Lucas Wardil,et al.  Adoption of simultaneous different strategies against different opponents enhances cooperation , 2009 .

[48]  David G. Rand,et al.  Positive Interactions Promote Public Cooperation , 2009, Science.

[49]  Lucas Wardil,et al.  Adoption of simultaneous different strategies against different opponents enhances cooperation , 2009 .

[50]  J. Henrich,et al.  Markets, Religion, Community Size, and the Evolution of Fairness and Punishment , 2010, Science.

[51]  David G. Rand,et al.  The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market , 2010, ArXiv.

[52]  David G. Rand,et al.  Anti-social Punishment Can Prevent the Co-evolution of Punishment and Cooperation , 2010 .

[53]  Lourdes Araujo,et al.  Social Experiments in the Mesoscale: Humans Playing a Spatial Prisoner's Dilemma , 2010, PloS one.

[54]  Damon Centola,et al.  The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment , 2010, Science.

[55]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[56]  David G. Rand,et al.  Slow to Anger and Fast to Forgive: Cooperation in an Uncertain World , 2010 .

[57]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Coevolutionary Games - A Mini Review , 2009, Biosyst..

[58]  Nicholas A. Christakis,et al.  Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[59]  Matthias Sutter,et al.  Choosing the Carrot or the Stick? Endogenous Institutional Choice in Social Dilemma Situations , 2010 .

[60]  David G. Rand,et al.  Third Party Reward and Punishment: Group Size, Efficiency and Public Goods , 2010 .

[61]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Human strategy updating in evolutionary games , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  Douglas L. Miller,et al.  Robust Inference With Multiway Clustering , 2011 .

[63]  James H Fowler,et al.  Correlated genotypes in friendship networks , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[64]  Robert D. Kleinberg,et al.  Continuous-time model of structural balance , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[65]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments , 2010, SECO.

[66]  Katrin Fehl,et al.  Co-evolution of behaviour and social network structure promotes human cooperation. , 2011, Ecology letters.

[67]  Manfred Milinski,et al.  The Calculus of Selfishness , 2011 .

[68]  David G. Rand,et al.  The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games. , 2011, Nature communications.

[69]  David G. Rand,et al.  The promise of Mechanical Turk: how online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. , 2012, Journal of theoretical biology.