Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game.
Most theories of social exchange distinguish between two different types of cooperation, depending on whether or not cooperation occurs conditional upon the partner's previous behaviors. Here, we used a multinomial processing tree model to distinguish between positive and negative reciprocity a...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5679624?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-f25af57ed0de4e7e82447c1da86e5a7b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-f25af57ed0de4e7e82447c1da86e5a7b2020-11-25T01:48:05ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-011211e018795210.1371/journal.pone.0187952Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game.Raoul BellLaura MiethAxel BuchnerMost theories of social exchange distinguish between two different types of cooperation, depending on whether or not cooperation occurs conditional upon the partner's previous behaviors. Here, we used a multinomial processing tree model to distinguish between positive and negative reciprocity and cooperation bias in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. In Experiments 1 and 2, the facial expressions of the partners were varied to manipulate cooperation bias. In Experiment 3, an extinction instruction was used to manipulate reciprocity. The results confirm that people show a stronger cooperation bias when interacting with smiling compared to angry-looking partners, supporting the notion that a smiling facial expression in comparison to an angry facial expression helps to construe a situation as cooperative rather than competitive. Reciprocity was enhanced for appearance-incongruent behaviors, but only when participants were encouraged to form expectations about the partners' future behaviors. Negative reciprocity was not stronger than positive reciprocity, regardless of whether expectations were manipulated or not. Experiment 3 suggests that people are able to ignore previous episodes of cheating as well as previous episodes of cooperation if these turn out to be irrelevant for predicting a partner's future behavior. The results provide important insights into the mechanisms of social cooperation.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5679624?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Raoul Bell Laura Mieth Axel Buchner |
spellingShingle |
Raoul Bell Laura Mieth Axel Buchner Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Raoul Bell Laura Mieth Axel Buchner |
author_sort |
Raoul Bell |
title |
Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. |
title_short |
Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. |
title_full |
Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. |
title_fullStr |
Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. |
title_sort |
separating conditional and unconditional cooperation in a sequential prisoner's dilemma game. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
Most theories of social exchange distinguish between two different types of cooperation, depending on whether or not cooperation occurs conditional upon the partner's previous behaviors. Here, we used a multinomial processing tree model to distinguish between positive and negative reciprocity and cooperation bias in a sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. In Experiments 1 and 2, the facial expressions of the partners were varied to manipulate cooperation bias. In Experiment 3, an extinction instruction was used to manipulate reciprocity. The results confirm that people show a stronger cooperation bias when interacting with smiling compared to angry-looking partners, supporting the notion that a smiling facial expression in comparison to an angry facial expression helps to construe a situation as cooperative rather than competitive. Reciprocity was enhanced for appearance-incongruent behaviors, but only when participants were encouraged to form expectations about the partners' future behaviors. Negative reciprocity was not stronger than positive reciprocity, regardless of whether expectations were manipulated or not. Experiment 3 suggests that people are able to ignore previous episodes of cheating as well as previous episodes of cooperation if these turn out to be irrelevant for predicting a partner's future behavior. The results provide important insights into the mechanisms of social cooperation. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5679624?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT raoulbell separatingconditionalandunconditionalcooperationinasequentialprisonersdilemmagame AT lauramieth separatingconditionalandunconditionalcooperationinasequentialprisonersdilemmagame AT axelbuchner separatingconditionalandunconditionalcooperationinasequentialprisonersdilemmagame |
_version_ |
1725012998916931584 |