IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v115y2018p12241-12246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indirect reciprocity with private, noisy, and incomplete information

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Hilbe

    (Institute of Science and Technology Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria)

  • Laura Schmid

    (Institute of Science and Technology Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria)

  • Josef Tkadlec

    (Institute of Science and Technology Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria)

  • Krishnendu Chatterjee

    (Institute of Science and Technology Austria, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria)

  • Martin A. Nowak

    (Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138; Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138)

Abstract

Indirect reciprocity is a mechanism for cooperation based on shared moral systems and individual reputations. It assumes that members of a community routinely observe and assess each other and that they use this information to decide who is good or bad, and who deserves cooperation. When information is transmitted publicly, such that all community members agree on each other’s reputation, previous research has highlighted eight crucial moral systems. These “leading-eight” strategies can maintain cooperation and resist invasion by defectors. However, in real populations individuals often hold their own private views of others. Once two individuals disagree about their opinion of some third party, they may also see its subsequent actions in a different light. Their opinions may further diverge over time. Herein, we explore indirect reciprocity when information transmission is private and noisy. We find that in the presence of perception errors, most leading-eight strategies cease to be stable. Even if a leading-eight strategy evolves, cooperation rates may drop considerably when errors are common. Our research highlights the role of reliable information and synchronized reputations to maintain stable moral systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Hilbe & Laura Schmid & Josef Tkadlec & Krishnendu Chatterjee & Martin A. Nowak, 2018. "Indirect reciprocity with private, noisy, and incomplete information," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(48), pages 12241-12246, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12241-12246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/48/12241.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Bin & Kang, Wenjun & Sheng, Jinfang & Cheng, Lvhang & Hou, Zhengang, 2021. "Effects of trust-driven updating rule based on reputation in spatial prisoner’s dilemma games," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 579(C).
    2. Timilsina, Raja R. & Kotani, Koji & Nakagawa, Yoshinori & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2022. "Intragenerational deliberation and intergenerational sustainability dilemma," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Zhu, Wenqiang & Pan, Qiuhui & He, Mingfeng, 2022. "Exposure-based reputation mechanism promotes the evolution of cooperation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Isamu Okada & Hitoshi Yamamoto & Satoshi Uchida, 2020. "Hybrid Assessment Scheme Based on the Stern- Judging Rule for Maintaining Cooperation under Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, February.
    5. Maria Kleshnina & Sabrina S. Streipert & Jerzy A. Filar & Krishnendu Chatterjee, 2020. "Prioritised Learning in Snowdrift-Type Games," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    7. Zhang, Zhipeng & Wu, Yu’e & Zhang, Shuhua, 2022. "Reputation-based asymmetric comparison of fitness promotes cooperation on complex networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 608(P1).
    8. Simone Righi & Károly Takács, 2022. "Gossip: Perspective Taking to Establish Cooperation," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1086-1100, December.
    9. Jiang, Luo-Luo & Gao, Jian & Chen, Zhi & Li, Wen-Jing & Kurths, Jürgen, 2021. "Reducing the bystander effect via decreasing group size to solve the collective-risk social dilemma," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 410(C).
    10. Wang, Chaoqian & Szolnoki, Attila, 2022. "Involution game with spatio-temporal heterogeneity of social resources," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 430(C).
    11. Wu, Yu’e & Zhang, Zhipeng & Yang, Guoli & Liu, Haixin & Zhang, Qingfeng, 2022. "Evolution of cooperation driven by diversity on a double-layer square lattice," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Gao, Hongyu & Wang, Juan & Zhang, Fan & Li, Xiaopeng & Xia, Chengyi, 2021. "Cooperation dynamics based on reputation in the mixed population with two species of strategists," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 410(C).
    13. Yvan I. Russell & Yana Stoilova & Aura-Adriana Dosoftei, 2020. "Cooperation through Image Scoring: A Replication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Thomas Graham & Maria Kleshnina & Jerzy A. Filar, 2023. "Where Do Mistakes Lead? A Survey of Games with Incompetent Players," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 231-264, March.
    15. Quan, Ji & Nie, Jiacheng & Chen, Wenman & Wang, Xianjia, 2022. "Keeping or reversing social norms promote cooperation by enhancing indirect reciprocity," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    16. M. Kleshnina & K. Kaveh & K. Chatterjee, 2020. "The role of behavioural plasticity in finite vs infinite populations," Papers 2009.13160, arXiv.org.
    17. Radzvilavicius, Arunas, 2021. "Tolerant moral judgment drives evolution of collective action," OSF Preprints neq9g, Center for Open Science.
    18. Gao, Meng & Li, Zhi & Wu, Te, 2023. "Evolutionary dynamics of friendship-driven reputation strategies," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).

    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:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:12241-12246. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.org/ .

    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.