IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v10y2018i6p55-d153175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulating the Cost of Cooperation: A Recipe for Collaborative Problem-Solving

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Guazzini

    (Center for the Study of Complex Dynamics (CSDC), University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Firenze, Italy
    Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Firenze, Italy)

  • Mirko Duradoni

    (Department of Information Engineering, University of Florence, Via Santa Marta 3, 50139 Firenze, Italy)

  • Alessandro Lazzeri

    (Department of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, Via Girolamo Caruso 16, 56122 Pisa, Italy)

  • Giorgio Gronchi

    (Center for the Study of Complex Dynamics (CSDC), University of Florence, Via di San Salvi 12, 50135 Firenze, Italy)

Abstract

Collective problem-solving and decision-making, along with other forms of collaboration online, are central phenomena within ICT. There had been several attempts to create a system able to go beyond the passive accumulation of data. However, those systems often neglect important variables such as group size, the difficulty of the tasks, the tendency to cooperate, and the presence of selfish individuals (free riders). Given the complex relations among those variables, numerical simulations could be the ideal tool to explore such relationships. We take into account the cost of cooperation in collaborative problem solving by employing several simulated scenarios. The role of two parameters was explored: the capacity, the group’s capability to solve increasingly challenging tasks coupled with the collective knowledge of a group, and the payoff, an individual’s own benefit in terms of new knowledge acquired. The final cooperation rate is only affected by the cost of cooperation in the case of simple tasks and small communities. In contrast, the fitness of the community, the difficulty of the task, and the groups sizes interact in a non-trivial way, hence shedding some light on how to improve crowdsourcing when the cost of cooperation is high.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Guazzini & Mirko Duradoni & Alessandro Lazzeri & Giorgio Gronchi, 2018. "Simulating the Cost of Cooperation: A Recipe for Collaborative Problem-Solving," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:55-:d:153175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/10/6/55/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/10/6/55/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy Gowers & Michael Nielsen, 2009. "Massively collaborative mathematics," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7266), pages 879-881, October.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    3. Manfred Milinski & Dirk Semmann & Hans-Jürgen Krambeck, 2002. "Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6870), pages 424-426, January.
    4. Serge Galam, 2008. "Sociophysics: A Review Of Galam Models," International Journal of Modern Physics C (IJMPC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(03), pages 409-440.
    5. M.-L. Caron-Fasan & V. Chanal, 2008. "How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspiritcase," Post-Print halshs-00376837, HAL.
    6. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    7. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    8. Yan Ma & Zhenjiang Shen & Dinh Thanh Nguyen, 2016. "Agent-Based Simulation to Inform Planning Strategies for Welfare Facilities for the Elderly: Day Care Center Development in a Japanese City," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19(4), pages 1-5.
    9. Galam, Serge, 2004. "Contrarian deterministic effects on opinion dynamics: “the hung elections scenario”," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 333(C), pages 453-460.
    10. Valérie Chanal & Marie-Laurence Caron-Fasan, 2008. "How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing: the Crowdspirit ® case," Post-Print halshs-00370761, HAL.
    11. Elizabeth Hunter & Brian Mac Namee & John D. Kelleher, 2017. "A Taxonomy for Agent-Based Models in Human Infectious Disease Epidemiology," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(3), pages 1-2.
    12. Christoph Engel & Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2016. "When is the risk of cooperation worth taking? The prisoner’s dilemma as a game of multiple motives," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(16), pages 1157-1161, November.
    13. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2015. "Group Size Effect on Cooperation in One-Shot Social Dilemmas II: Curvilinear Effect," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    14. Valérie Chanal & Marie-Laurence Caron-Fasan, 2008. "How to invent a new business model based on crowdsourcing : the Crowdspirit ® case," Post-Print halshs-00486794, HAL.
    15. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Camillo Donati & Andrea Guazzini & Giorgio Gronchi & Andrea Smorti, 2019. "About Linda Again: How Narratives and Group Reasoning Can Influence Conjunction Fallacy," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Dongwei Guo & Mengmeng Fu & Hai Li, 2021. "Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Group Game Model with Double-Layer Networks," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-27, January.
    3. Peijie Jiang & Xiaomeng Ruan & Zirong Feng & Yanyun Jiang & Bin Xiong, 2023. "Research on Online Collaborative Problem-Solving in the Last 10 Years: Current Status, Hotspots, and Outlook—A Knowledge Graph Analysis Based on CiteSpace," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucia Tamburino, 2008. "The Evolution of Trust in Non-Simultaneous Exchange Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 85-113, February.
    2. Ding, Rui & Wang, Xianjia & Liu, Yang & Zhao, Jinhua & Gu, Cuiling, 2023. "Evolutionary games with environmental feedbacks under an external incentive mechanism," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Valerio Capraro & Joseph Y Halpern, 2019. "Translucent players: Explaining cooperative behavior in social dilemmas," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(4), pages 371-408, November.
    4. Wang, Xiaofeng & Chen, Xiaojie & Gao, Jia & Wang, Long, 2013. "Reputation-based mutual selection rule promotes cooperation in spatial threshold public goods games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 181-187.
    5. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    6. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    7. Mirko Duradoni & Mario Paolucci & Franco Bagnoli & Andrea Guazzini, 2018. "Fairness and Trust in Virtual Environments: The Effects of Reputation," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    8. Gary Bolton & Ben Greiner & Axel ockenfels, 2015. "Conflict resolution vs. conflict escalation in online markets," Discussion Papers 2015-19, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    9. Lu, Wen & Liang, Shu, 2023. "Direct emotional interaction in prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    10. De Cremer, David & Dijk, Eric van, 2009. "Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 45-55, May.
    11. Laura Schmid & Farbod Ekbatani & Christian Hilbe & Krishnendu Chatterjee, 2023. "Quantitative assessment can stabilize indirect reciprocity under imperfect information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Brosnan, Sarah F., 2011. "An evolutionary perspective on morality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 23-30, January.
    13. Feng, Sinan & Liu, Xuesong & Dong, Yida, 2022. "Limited punishment pool may promote cooperation in the public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 165(P2).
    14. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    15. Manfred Füllsack, 2011. "Firstness - As seen from the perspective of Complexity Research," E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(1), pages 1-19.
    16. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    17. Shimpei Koike & Mayuko Nakamaru & Tokinao Otaka & Hajime Shimao & Ken-Ichi Shimomura & Takehiko Yamato, 2018. "Reciprocity and exclusion in informal financial institutions: An experimental study of rotating savings and credit associations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-23, August.
    18. Si, Zehua & He, Zhixue & Shen, Chen & Tanimoto, Jun, 2023. "Speculative defectors as unexpected insulators of super cooperators in structured populations," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    19. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    20. Yang, Kai & Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Yang, Junzhong, 2018. "The effects of attribute persistence on cooperation in evolutionary games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 23-28.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:55-:d:153175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.