4.6 Article

Early exclusion leads to cyclical cooperation in repeated group interactions

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2021.0755

关键词

cooperation; social dilemma; public goods games; social exclusion; evolutionary game theory

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61976048, 62036002]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds of the Central Universities of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study shows that introducing early exclusion in repeated interactions can prevent the breakdown of cooperation, leading to an evolutionary oscillation among cooperators, defectors, and excluders. It also highlights that in finite populations, cooperators dominate most of the time with early exclusion.
Explaining the emergence and maintenance of cooperation among selfish individuals from an evolutionary perspective remains a grand challenge in biology, economy and social sciences. Social exclusion is believed to be an answer to this conundrum. However, previously related studies often assume one-shot interactions and ignore how free-riding is identified, which seem to be too idealistic. In this work, we consider repeated interactions where excluders need to pay a monitoring cost to identify free-riders for exclusion and free-riders cannot participate in the following possible game interactions once they are identified and excluded by excluders in the repeated interaction process. We reveal that the introduction of such exclusion can prevent the breakdown of cooperation in repeated group interactions. In particular, we demonstrate that an evolutionary oscillation among cooperators, defectors and excluders can appear in infinitely large populations when early exclusion is implemented. In addition, we find that the population spends most of the time in states where cooperators dominate for early exclusion when stochastic mutation-selection is considered in finite populations. Our results highlight that early exclusion is successful in solving the mentioned enigma of cooperation in repeated group interactions.

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

4.6
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