Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.

Indirect reciprocity is often claimed as one of the key mechanisms of human cooperation. It works only if there is a reputational score keeping and each individual can inform with high probability which other individuals were good or bad in the previous round. Gossip is often proposed as a mechanism...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Szabolcs Számadó, Ferenc Szalai, István Scheuring
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4732813?pdf=render
id doaj-1882759de4704250bc03473be9023f54
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1882759de4704250bc03473be9023f542020-11-25T00:02:54ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01111e014762310.1371/journal.pone.0147623Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.Szabolcs SzámadóFerenc SzalaiIstván ScheuringIndirect reciprocity is often claimed as one of the key mechanisms of human cooperation. It works only if there is a reputational score keeping and each individual can inform with high probability which other individuals were good or bad in the previous round. Gossip is often proposed as a mechanism that can maintain such coherence of reputations in the face of errors of transmission. Random errors, however, are not the only source of uncertainty in such situations. The possibility of deceptive communication, where the signallers aim to misinform the receiver cannot be excluded. While there is plenty of evidence for deceptive communication in humans the possibility of deception is not yet incorporated into models of indirect reciprocity. Here we show that when deceptive strategies are allowed in the population it will cause the collapse of the coherence of reputations and thus in turn it results the collapse of cooperation. This collapse is independent of the norms and the cost and benefit values. It is due to the fact that there is no selection for honest communication in the framework of indirect reciprocity. It follows that indirect reciprocity can be only proposed plausibly as a mechanism of human cooperation if additional mechanisms are specified in the model that maintains honesty.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4732813?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Szabolcs Számadó
Ferenc Szalai
István Scheuring
spellingShingle Szabolcs Számadó
Ferenc Szalai
István Scheuring
Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Szabolcs Számadó
Ferenc Szalai
István Scheuring
author_sort Szabolcs Számadó
title Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
title_short Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
title_full Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
title_fullStr Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
title_full_unstemmed Deception Undermines the Stability of Cooperation in Games of Indirect Reciprocity.
title_sort deception undermines the stability of cooperation in games of indirect reciprocity.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Indirect reciprocity is often claimed as one of the key mechanisms of human cooperation. It works only if there is a reputational score keeping and each individual can inform with high probability which other individuals were good or bad in the previous round. Gossip is often proposed as a mechanism that can maintain such coherence of reputations in the face of errors of transmission. Random errors, however, are not the only source of uncertainty in such situations. The possibility of deceptive communication, where the signallers aim to misinform the receiver cannot be excluded. While there is plenty of evidence for deceptive communication in humans the possibility of deception is not yet incorporated into models of indirect reciprocity. Here we show that when deceptive strategies are allowed in the population it will cause the collapse of the coherence of reputations and thus in turn it results the collapse of cooperation. This collapse is independent of the norms and the cost and benefit values. It is due to the fact that there is no selection for honest communication in the framework of indirect reciprocity. It follows that indirect reciprocity can be only proposed plausibly as a mechanism of human cooperation if additional mechanisms are specified in the model that maintains honesty.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4732813?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT szabolcsszamado deceptionunderminesthestabilityofcooperationingamesofindirectreciprocity
AT ferencszalai deceptionunderminesthestabilityofcooperationingamesofindirectreciprocity
AT istvanscheuring deceptionunderminesthestabilityofcooperationingamesofindirectreciprocity
_version_ 1725436085938421760