4.4 Article

Participation costs can suppress the evolution of upstream reciprocity

Journal

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
Volume 273, Issue 1, Pages 197-206

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.12.043

Keywords

Evolutionary game theory; Evolution of cooperation; Upstream reciprocity; Non-uniform interaction rates; Participation costs

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [200020-119719]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200020-119719] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Indirect reciprocity, one of the many mechanisms proposed to explain the evolution of cooperation, is the idea that altruistic actions can be rewarded by third parties. Upstream or generalized reciprocity is one type of indirect reciprocity in which individuals help someone if they have been helped by somebody else in the past. Although empirically found to be at work in humans, the evolution of upstream reciprocity is difficult to explain from a theoretical point of view. A recent model of upstream reciprocity, first proposed by Nowak and Roch (2007) and further analyzed by Iwagami and Masuda (2010), shows that while upstream reciprocity alone does not lead to the evolution of cooperation, it can act in tandem with mechanisms such as network reciprocity and increase the total level of cooperativity in the population. We argue, however, that Nowak and Roch's model systematically leads to non-uniform interaction rates, where more cooperative individuals take part in more games than less cooperative ones. As a result, the critical benefit-to-cost ratios derived under this model in previous studies are not invariant with respect to the addition of participation costs. We show that accounting for these costs can hinder and even suppress the evolution of upstream reciprocity, both for populations with non-random encounters and graph-structured populations. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available