Punishment and reputation in spatial public goods games

The puzzle of the emergence of cooperation between unrelated individuals is shared across diverse fields of behavioural sciences and economics. In this article we combine the public goods game originating in economics with evolutionary approaches traditionally used in biology. Instead of pairwise encounters, we consider the more complex case of groups of three interacting individuals. We show that territoriality is capable of promoting cooperative behaviour, as in the case of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Moreover, by adding punishment opportunities, the readiness to cooperate is greatly enhanced and asocial strategies can be largely suppressed. Finally, as soon as players carry a reputation for being willing or unwilling to punish, highly cooperative and fair outcomes are achieved. This group–beneficial result is obtained, intriguingly, by making individuals more likely to exploit their co–players if they can get away with it. Thus, less–cooperative individuals make more-cooperative societies.

[1]  Karl Sigmund,et al.  The dynamics of public goods , 2004 .

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

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

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

[5]  C. Hauert,et al.  Reward and punishment , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  R. Boyd,et al.  In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small- Scale Societies , 2001 .

[7]  C. Hauert Fundamental clusters in spatial 2×2 games , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Cooperation, Reciprocity and Punishment in Fifteen Small-scale Societies , 2001 .

[9]  R. Evans,et al.  Cooperation and Punishment , 2001 .

[10]  M. Nowak,et al.  Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. , 2000, Science.

[11]  M. Doebeli,et al.  Variable investment, the Continuous Prisoner's Dilemma, and the origin of cooperation , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[12]  E. Fehr,et al.  Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments , 1999, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[13]  Josef Hofbauer,et al.  Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics , 1998 .

[14]  C. Hauert,et al.  Effects of increasing the number of players and memory size in the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: a numerical approach , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[15]  M. Milinski,et al.  Human cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma: Pavlov versus Generous Tit-for-Tat. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[16]  J. Kagel,et al.  Handbook of Experimental Economics , 1997 .

[17]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining , 1995 .

[18]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Punishment in animal societies , 1995, Nature.

[19]  P. Maître PLAYING FAIR GAME THEORY AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT , 1994 .

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

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

[22]  Toshio Yamagishi,et al.  Seriousness of Social Dilemmas and the Provision of a Sanctioning System , 1988 .

[23]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

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

[25]  W. Hamilton Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics , 1975 .

[26]  A. Dickson On Evolution , 1884, Science.