Abstract

Leadership can be effective in promoting cooperation within a group, but as the saying goes “heavy is the head that wears the crown”. A lot of debate still surrounds exactly what motivates individuals to expend the effort necessary to lead their groupmates. Evolutionary game theoretic models represent individual’s thought processes by strategy update protocols. The most common of these are random mutation, individual learning, selective imitation, and myopic optimization. Recently we introduced a new strategy update protocol - foresight - which takes into account future payoffs, and how groupmates respond to one’s own strategies. Here we apply our approach to a new 2 × 2 game, where one player, a leader, ensures via inspection and punishment that the other player, a subordinate, produces collective good. We compare the levels of inspection and production predicted by Nash Equilibrium, Quantal Response Equilibrium, level-k cognition, fictitious play, reinforcement learning, selective payoff-biased imitation, and foresight. We show that only foresight and selective imitation are effective at promoting contribution by the subordinate and inspection and punishment by the leader. The role of selective imitation in cultural and social evolution is well appreciated. In line with our prior findings, foresight is a viable alternative route to cooperation.

Highlights

  • Leadership can be effective in promoting cooperation within a group, but as the saying goes “heavy is the head that wears the crown”

  • We consider a simple 2 × 2 game played between a leader and a subordinate, which is based on the inspection game[26] described in the Supplementary Information (SI)

  • Since we are interested in drawing parallels with collective action problems we make assumptions in such a way that the subordinate has no incentive to see the good be produced unless they are facing punishment

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Leadership can be effective in promoting cooperation within a group, but as the saying goes “heavy is the head that wears the crown”. The leader assumes that the subordinate uses a mixed strategy contributing with a certain probability. The subordinate assumes that the leader uses a mixed strategy inspecting with a certain probability.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.