4.5 Article

Bilateral costly expulsions resolve the public goods dilemma

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2021.0627

关键词

social network; evolutionary game theory; cooperation; expulsion; public goods; complexity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61903077]
  2. Shanghai Sailing Program [19YF1402500]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2232019D3-56]
  4. Slovenian Research Agency [P1-0403, J1-2457, J1-9112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that in the public goods game, public cooperation thrives as expulsion costs increase, contrary to previous beliefs. This phenomenon is known as second-order free-rider problems, which usually require additional mechanisms to be resolved.
Expulsion has been found to promote cooperation in social dilemmas, but only if it does not incur costs or is applied unilaterally. Here, we show that removing both conditions leads to a spontaneous resolution of the costly expulsion problem. Namely, by studying the public goods game where cooperators and defectors can expel others at a personal cost, we find that public cooperation thrives as expulsion costs increase. This is counterintuitive, as the cost of other-regarding behaviour typically places an additional burden on cooperation, which is in itself costly. Such scenarios are referred to as second-order free-rider problems, and they typically require an additional mechanism, such as network reciprocity, to be resolved. We perform a mean field analysis of the public goods game with bilateral costly expulsion, showing analytically that the expected payoff difference between cooperators and defectors increases with expulsion costs as long as players with the same strategy have, on average, a higher frequency to interact with each other. As the latter condition is often satisfied in social networks, our results thus reveal a fascinating new path to public cooperation, and they show that the costs of well-intended actions need not be low for them to be effective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据