de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Privacy Policy Disclaimer Contact us
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy?

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons56825

Milinski,  Manfred
Department Evolutionary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons56933

Semmann,  Dirk
Department Evolutionary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons56779

Krambeck,  Hans-Jürgen
Department Ecophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Limnology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Bakker, T. C. M., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: image scoring or standing strategy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268(1484), 2495-2501.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000F-DE1F-8
Abstract
Theorists have only recently shown that cooperation through indirect reciprocity can evolve. The first modelling approach favoured a mechanism called image scoring. Helping someone increases ones image score, whereas refusing to help reduces it. The evolutionary outcome vv as a discriminator image scoring strategy that helps everybody who has, for example, a positive image score. Two experimental studies with humans found results that were compatible with discriminator image scoring. However, a new analysis of other theorists, leased on another population structure, has cast doubts on the evolutionary stability of strategies using the recipient's score as a sole basis for decision. The new theoretical study confirmed that a strategy aiming at 'good standing' has superior properties and easily beats image scoring. :fin individual loses good standing by failing to help a recipient in good standing, whereas failing to help recipients who lack good standing does not damage the standing of a potential donor (but would reduce his image score). The present empirical study with 23 groups of seven human subjects each was designed for distinguishing between the two proposed mechanisms experimentally. The results differed strongly from standing strategies, which might demand too much working memory capacity; but were compatible with image scoring or a similar strategy to a large extent. Furthermore, donors of constant 'NO players' compensated for their refusing to help these players by being snore generous to others