Abstract

Third-party punishment is a common mechanism to promote cooperation in humans. Theoretical models of evolution of cooperation predict that punishment maintains cooperation if it is sufficiently frequent. On the other hand, empirical studies have found that participants frequently punishing others do not success in comparison with those not eager to punish others, suggesting that punishment is suboptimal and thus should not be frequent. That being the case, our question is what mechanism, if any, can sustain cooperation even if punishment is rare. The present study proposes that one possible mechanism is risk-averse social learning. Using the method of evolutionary game dynamics, we investigate the effect of risk attitude of individuals on the question. In our framework, individuals select a strategy based on its risk, i.e., the variance of the payoff, as well as its expected payoff; risk-averse individuals prefer to select a strategy with low variable payoff. Using the framework, we examine the evolution of cooperation in two-player social dilemma games with punishment. We study two models: cooperators and defectors compete, while defectors may be punished by an exogenous authority; and cooperators, defectors, and cooperative punishers compete, while defectors may be punished by the cooperative punishers. We find that in both models, risk-averse individuals achieve stable cooperation with significantly low frequency of punishment. We also examine three punishment variants: in each game, all defectors are punished; only one of defectors is punished; and only a defector who exploits a cooperator or a cooperative punisher is punished. We find that the first and second variants effectively promote cooperation. Comparing the first and second variants, each can be more effective than the other depending on punishment frequency.

Highlights

  • Cooperation is observed in various species, albeit it seems unfavorable in view of selfishness [1,2,3]

  • We have investigated the effect of risk attitude on social learning dynamics of third-party punishment

  • We studied two models: in the first model, the third-party punisher is an external authority that stands outside the competition of individuals; in the second model, those individuals endogenously perform third-party punishment so that the third-party punishers compete against non-punishers

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Cooperation is observed in various species, albeit it seems unfavorable in view of selfishness [1,2,3]. Human cooperation is unique as they enforce themselves to cooperate by means of social norms and institutions: norm violators are punished by community members and cooperation is maintained [4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. A punisher is often a third party who does not directly suffer from a norm violation. Empirical studies suggest that third-party punishment is ubiquitous across humans [8, 13]. We propose an idea to promote cooperation even when third-party punishment is rare—risk aversion. Experimental studies suggest that the mere threat of punishment can promote cooperation [27, 28]. Risk aversion promotes cooperation with a little bit of third-party punishment

Evolutionary Stability of Cooperators
AUTHORITATIVE THIRD-PARTY PUNISHMENT us 1 β log E eβRs
Dimorphism of Cooperators and Defectors
ENDOGENOUS THIRD-PARTY
THE DONATION GAME
DISCUSSION

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.