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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Raoul Bell, Laura Mieth, Axel Buchner
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