Human cooperation based on punishment reputation.

The threat of punishment usually promotes cooperation. However, punishing itself is costly, rare in nonhuman animals, and humans who punish often finish with low payoffs in economic experiments. The evolution of punishment has therefore been unclear. Recent theoretical developments suggest that punishment has evolved in the context of reputation games. We tested this idea in a simple helping game with observers and with punishment and punishment reputation (experimentally controlling for other possible reputational effects). We show that punishers fully compensate their costs as they receive help more often. The more likely defection is punished within a group, the higher the level of within-group cooperation. These beneficial effects perish if the punishment reputation is removed. We conclude that reputation is key to the evolution of punishment.

Resistance to extreme strategies, rather than prosocial preferences, can explain human cooperation in public goods games.

The results of numerous economic games suggest that humans behave more cooperatively than would be expected if they were maximizing selfish interests. It has been argued that this is because individuals gain satisfaction from the success of others, and that such prosocial preferences require a novel evolutionary explanation. However, in previous games, imperfect behavior would automatically lead to an increase in cooperation, making it impossible to decouple any form of mistake or error from prosocial cooperative decisions. Here we empirically test between these alternatives by decoupling imperfect behavior from prosocial preferences in modified versions of the public goods game, in which individuals would maximize their selfish gain by completely (100%) cooperating. We found that, although this led to higher levels of cooperation, it did not lead to full cooperation, and individuals still perceived their group mates as competitors. This is inconsistent with either selfish or prosocial preferences, suggesting that the most parsimonious explanation is imperfect behavior triggered by psychological drives that can prevent both complete defection and complete cooperation. More generally, our results illustrate the caution that must be exercised when interpreting the evolutionary implications of economic experiments, especially the absolute level of cooperation in a particular treatment.

The co-evolution of social institutions, demography, and large-scale human cooperation.

Human cooperation is typically coordinated by institutions, which determine the outcome structure of the social interactions individuals engage in. Explaining the Neolithic transition from small- to large-scale societies involves understanding how these institutions co-evolve with demography. We study this using a demographically explicit model of institution formation in a patch-structured population. Each patch supports both social and asocial niches. Social individuals create an institution, at a cost to themselves, by negotiating how much of the costly public good provided by cooperators is invested into sanctioning defectors. The remainder of their public good is invested in technology that increases carrying capacity, such as irrigation systems. We show that social individuals can invade a population of asocials, and form institutions that support high levels of cooperation. We then demonstrate conditions where the co-evolution of cooperation, institutions, and demographic carrying capacity creates a transition from small- to large-scale social groups.

The role of reputation, punishment and their interplay in human cooperation

The problem of how cooperation can evolve between individuals or entities with conflicting interests is central to biology as many of the major evolutionary transitions, from the first replicating molecules to human societies, have required solving this problem. There are many routes to cooperation but humans seem to be distinct from other species as they have more complex and diverse mechanisms, often due to their higher cognitive skills, allowing them to reap the benefits from living in groups. Among those mechanisms, the use of reputation or past experience with others as well as sanctioning mechanisms both seem to be of major importance. They have often been considered separately but the interaction between the two might provide new insights as to how punishment could have appeared as a means to enforce cooperation in early humans. In this thesis, I firstly use theoretical approaches from evolutionary game theory to investigate the evolution of punishment and cooperation through a reputation system based on punitive actions, and compare the efficacy of this system, in terms of cooperation achieved, with one based on cooperative actions. On the other hand, I use empirical approaches from economics to test, in real life, predictions from theoretical models but also to explore further conditions such as environmental variation, constrained memory, or even the scale of competition between individuals. Both approaches have allowed contributing to the understanding of how these factors affect reputation and punishment use, and ultimately how cooperation is achieved.

Working memory constrains human cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Many problems in human society reflect the inability of selfish parties to cooperate. The “Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma” has been used widely as a model for the evolution of cooperation in societies. Axelrod’s computer tournaments and the extensive simulations of evolution by Nowak and Sigmund and others have shown that natural selection can favor cooperative strategies in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Rigorous empirical tests, however, lag behind the progress made by theorists. Clear predictions differ depending on the players’ capacity to remember previous rounds of the game. To test whether humans use the kind of cooperative strategies predicted, we asked students to play the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game either continuously or interrupted after each round by a secondary memory task (i.e., playing the game “Memory”) that constrained the students’ working-memory capacity. When playing without interruption, most students used “Pavlovian” strategies, as predicted, for greater memory capacity, and the rest used “generous tit-for-tat” strategies. The proportion of generous tit-for-tat strategies increased when games of Memory interfered with the subjects’ working memory, as predicted. Students who continued to use complex Pavlovian strategies were less successful in the Memory game, but more successful in the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which indicates a trade-off in memory capacity for the two tasks. Our results suggest that the set of strategies predicted by game theorists approximates human reality.

Human cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma: Pavlov versus Generous Tit-for-Tat.

The iterated Prisoner's Dilemma has become the paradigm for the evolution of cooperation among egoists. Since Axelrod's classic computer tournaments and Nowak and Sigmund's extensive simulations of evolution, we know that natural selection can favor cooperative strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma. According to recent developments of theory the last champion strategy of "win--stay, lose--shift" ("Pavlov") is the winner only if the players act simultaneously. In the more natural situation of players alternating the roles of donor and recipient a strategy of "Generous Tit-for-Tat" wins computer simulations of short-term memory strategies. We show here by experiments with humans that cooperation dominated in both the simultaneous and the alternating Prisoner's Dilemma. Subjects were consistent in their strategies: 30% adopted a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy, whereas 70% used a Pavlovian strategy in both the alternating and the simultaneous game. As predicted for unconditional strategies, Pavlovian players appeared to be more successful in the simultaneous game whereas Generous Tit-for-Tat-like players achieved higher payoffs in the alternating game. However, the Pavlovian players were smarter than predicted: they suffered less from defectors and exploited cooperators more readily. Humans appear to cooperate either with a Generous Tit-for-Tat-like strategy or with a strategy that appreciates Pavlov's advantages but minimizes its handicaps.

Exposure to superfluous information reduces cooperation and increases antisocial punishment in reputation-based interactions

Human cooperation is often based on reputation gained from previous interactions with third parties. Such reputation can be built on generous or punitive actions, and both, one's own reputation and the reputation of others have been shown to influence decision making in experimental games that control for confounding variables. Here we test how reputation-based cooperation and punishment react to disruption of the cognitive processing in different kinds of helping games with observers. Saying a few superfluous words before each interaction was used to possibly interfere with working memory. In a first set of experiments, where reputation could only be based on generosity, the disruption reduced the frequency of cooperation and lowered mean final payoffs. In a second set of experiments where reputation could only be based on punishment, the disruption increased the frequency of antisocial punishment (i.e. of punishing those who helped) and reduced the frequency of punishing defectors. Our findings suggest that working memory can easily be constraining in reputation-based interactions within experimental games, even if these games are based on a few simple rules with a visual display that provides all the information the subjects need to play the strategies predicted from current theory. Our findings also highlight a weakness of experimental games, namely that they can be very sensitive to environmental variation and that quantitative conclusions about antisocial punishment or other behavioral strategies can easily be misleading.

Competition for Cooperation: variability, benefits and heritability of relational wealth in hunter-gatherers

Many defining human characteristics including theory of mind, culture and language relate to our sociality, and facilitate the formation and maintenance of cooperative relationships. Therefore, deciphering the context in which our sociality evolved is invaluable in understanding what makes us unique as a species. Much work has emphasised group-level competition, such as warfare, in moulding human cooperation and sociality. However, competition and cooperation also occur within groups; and inter-individual differences in sociality have reported fitness implications in numerous non-human taxa. Here we investigate whether differential access to cooperation (relational wealth) is likely to lead to variation in fitness at the individual level among BaYaka hunter-gatherers. Using economic gift games we find that relational wealth: a) displays individual-level variation; b) provides advantages in buffering food risk, and is positively associated with body mass index (BMI) and female fertility; c) is partially heritable. These results highlight that individual-level processes may have been fundamental in the extension of human cooperation beyond small units of related individuals, and in shaping our sociality. Additionally, the findings offer insight in to trends related to human sociality found from research in other fields such as psychology and epidemiology.

Eager for fairness or revenge: psychological altruism in economics

To understand the human capacity for psychological altruism, one requires a proper understanding of how people actually think and feel. This paper addresses the possible relevance of recent findings in experimental economics and neuroeconomics to the philosophical controversy over altruism and egoism. After briefly sketching and contextualizing the controversy, we survey and discuss the results of various studies on behaviourally altruistic helping and punishing behaviour, which provide stimulating clues for the debate over psychological altruism. On closer analysis, these studies prove less relevant than originally expected because the data obtained admit competing interpretations such as people seeking fairness versus people seeking revenge. However, this mitigated conclusion does not preclude the possibility of more fruitful research in the area in the future. Throughout our analysis, we provide hints for the direction of future research on the question.

The evolution of punishment through reputation.

Punishment of non-cooperators has been observed to promote cooperation. Such punishment is an evolutionary puzzle because it is costly to the punisher while beneficial to others, for example, through increased social cohesion. Recent studies have concluded that punishing strategies usually pay less than some non-punishing strategies. These findings suggest that punishment could not have directly evolved to promote cooperation. However, while it is well established that reputation plays a key role in human cooperation, the simple threat from a reputation of being a punisher may not have been sufficiently explored yet in order to explain the evolution of costly punishment. Here, we first show analytically that punishment can lead to long-term benefits if it influences one's reputation and thereby makes the punisher more likely to receive help in future interactions. Then, in computer simulations, we incorporate up to 40 more complex strategies that use different kinds of reputations (e.g. from generous actions), or strategies that not only include punitive behaviours directed towards defectors but also towards cooperators for example. Our findings demonstrate that punishment can directly evolve through a simple reputation system. We conclude that reputation is crucial for the evolution of punishment by making a punisher more likely to receive help in future interactions, and that experiments investigating the beneficial effects of punishment in humans should include reputation as an explicit feature.

The establishment of communication systems depends on the scale of competition

How communication systems emerge and remain stable is an important question in both cognitive science and evolutionary biology. For communication to arise, not only must individuals cooperate by signaling reliable information, but they must also coordinate and perpetuate signals. Most studies on the emergence of communication in humans typically consider scenarios where individuals implicitly share the same interests. Likewise, most studies on human cooperation consider scenarios where shared conventions of signals and meanings cannot be developed de novo. Here, we combined both approaches with an economic experiment where participants could develop a common language, but under different conditions fostering or hindering cooperation. Participants endeavored to acquire a resource through a learning task in a computer-based environment. After this task, participants had the option to transmit a signal (a color) to a fellow group member, who would subsequently play the same learning task. We varied the way participants competed with each other (either global scale or local scale) and the cost of transmitting a signal (either costly or noncostly) and tracked the way in which signals were used as communication among players. Under global competition, players signaled more often and more consistently, scored higher individual payoffs, and established shared associations of signals and meanings. In addition, costly signals were also more likely to be used under global competition; whereas under local competition, fewer signals were sent and no effective communication system was developed. Our results demonstrate that communication involves both a coordination and a cooperative dilemma and show the importance of studying language evolution under different conditions influencing human cooperation.

Fatores que influenciam a cooperação em humanos

Human cooperation is fundamentally affected by reciprocal exchange, but it is also remarkably common on the context of large and symbolically marked in-groups, which promote cooperation through the feeling of belonging to a group. In this thesis, two empirical articles were produced in order to investigate how human cooperation is affected by factors such as reciprocity, in-group behavior, in-group markers and gender. We investigated this subject through the administration of online games consisting of token donations, on which the subjects faced virtual players controlled by the experiment. We found that cooperative behavior is strongly influenced by reciprocity, and it is also affected by the in-group behavior, observed on the context of the social variables place of birth, ethnicity, and religions, once all of them acted as in-group markers. The subjects´ in-group behavior was enhanced when they played with generous in-group opponents, but weakened when their in-group opponents were non-generous. It was also found that cooperation is not affected by gender, but men and women cooperated in different ways under the influence of reciprocity and in-group behavior. Women are much more reciprocal on their cooperative behavior and men are less willing to cooperate with outgroupers, even when they act generously. The overall results contribute to a better understanding of the adaptive value of cooperation, reciprocity and in-group behavior on the solution of important challenges through the human evolutionary history

A influência do feedback verbal na cooperação em crianças

Human cooperation is a hallmark of this species due to its wide extension to genetically unrelated individuals and complex division of labor. It is considered an evolutionary puzzle, because the theory of evolution by natural selection predicts that self-interested individuals tend to be selected. Different theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of cooperation, which the most important are kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Considering the evolutionary continuity between species, humans and other primates have several common traits that help to promote cooperation between individuals of these species. Two features, however, seem to be particularly humans: inequality aversion and preferences in relation to others. Although human cooperation is not necessarily related to morality, cooperative traits are the basis for moral tendencies. The development of human morality is a combination of early prosocial tendencies, cooperative skills displayed at different ages, social learning and cultural transmission of norms. The social stimulus seems to be particularly important in promoting cooperative behavior in children and adults. In order to study the influence of social stimuli, as verbal feedback, on children cooperation, a study was conducted with children in a public goods game. 407 children from public schools in Natal / RN, divided into 21 groups, between six and nine years, participated in eight rounds of this game. After each round, seven groups received praise for larger donations, seven groups have been criticized by smaller donations, and the other seven received no comment. Children cooperated more when criticized, without significant differences between sexes, although young children have cooperated more negative than older children. The results are likely related to the anticipation and avoidance of punishment associated with the feedback (although this did not occur), and greater sensitivity to the authority in younger children. Nevertheless, the cooperation decreased in all groups until the last day of play. The results suggest an early sensitivity to moral punishment, whose role in the maintenance of social relations must have been important in the evolution of cooperation in humans

Merre vezessen a magyar kapitalizmus útja? Látkép Ronald Coase világítótornyából = Which course for Hungary s capitalism? A view from Ronald Coase s lighthouse

A tanulmány - amely Coase és az új intézményi közgazdaságtan alapján keresi a címbeli kérdésre adható választ - a kapitalizmus alapvető interakciós formájaként a kölcsönösen előnyös cserét azonosítja, amely az emberi együttműködés megnyilvánulása. A gazdasági fejlődés feltétele e kooperáció költségeit csökkentő társadalmi játékszabályok, intézmények kialakítása. A jól működő kapitalizmus intézményi rendje sűrű és sokrétű, a részleteit tekintve időben és térben igen változó, jelentős részben nem állami, hanem magáneredetű. Ez a rend nem tervezhető meg, és jelenlegi tudásunk alapján nem is érthető meg konzisztens, összefüggő rendszerként. A magyar gazdaság fejlődési célját ezért nem lehet nemzetgazdasági szintű rendszerként vagy modellként megfogalmazni. A tényleges feladat az intézményi rend középszintű elemeinek fokozatos, kísérletező változtatása, figyelembe véve a már létező intézményi környezet történetileg adott, helyhez és időhöz kötött sajátosságait. De az intézményi "barkácsolásnak" mindvégig szem előtt kell tartania a kapitalizmus alapelvét: az önkéntes, kölcsönösen előnyös tranzakciók támogatását. _____ The study draws on Coase s lighthouse" of new institutional economics in addressing this question. It identifies mutually beneficial exchange, a manifestation of human cooperation, as the underlying form of interaction in capitalism, while stressing that economic development depends on creating social rules of the game (institutions) that decrease the costs of exchange. The institutional order of well-functioning capitalism is thickly woven with many features, often of private rather than public (legal or political) origin. Details vary greatly in time and space. Such an order cannot be planned, and with current knowledge, it cannot be seen as a consistent system. So the goal in Hungary s economic development should not be defined as a system or model for a national economy. It should set out to change intermediate-level institutions in gradual, experimental ways that pay heed to the time and space-bound idiosyncrasies of existing ones. Moreover institutional tinkering" should observe capitalism s basic institutional principle: facilitation of voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions.

La notion de l’explosion de la coopération et ses implications chez Kim Sterelny.

Le concept de coopération est souvent utilisé dans le domaine de l’éthique et de la politique pour illustrer et comprendre l’alignement des comportements associatifs entre les êtres humains. En lien avec ce concept, notre recherche portera sur la première question de savoir si Kim Sterelny (2003) réussit à produire un modèle théorique permettant d’expliquer les origines et les mécanismes de la coopération humaine. Notre recherche portera aussi sur la deuxième question de savoir s’il arrive à se servir de ce modèle pour infirmer la thèse de la modularité massive. Ainsi, ce mémoire traitera successivement du problème de la coopération, de la théorie de la sélection de groupe, du déclencheur écologique de la coopération des hominidés, des notions de coalition, d’exécution et d’engagement et finalement de la thèse de la modularité massive. Par l’examen de ces sujets, nous souhaitons démontrer que Sterelny n’arrive qu’à fournir une esquisse probable des origines et du développement de la coopération humaine et que sa critique de la thèse de la modularité massive n’arrive pas à infirmer cette dernière.