IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v27y2017i3d10.1007_s00191-016-0489-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of heterogeneous interaction and risk attitude adaptation on the evolution of cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Weijun Zeng

    (Tianjin University
    Hainan University)

  • Minqiang Li

    (Tianjin University)

  • Nan Feng

    (Tianjin University)

Abstract

This paper addresses the evolution of cooperation in a multi-agent system with agents interacting heterogeneously with each other based on the iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) game. The heterogeneity of interaction is defined in two models. First, agents in a network are restricted to interacting with only their neighbors (local interaction). Second, agents are allowed to adopt different IPD strategies against different opponents (discriminative interaction). These two heterogeneous interaction scenarios are different to the classical evolutionary game, in which each agent interacts with every other agent in the population by adopting the same strategy against all opponents. Moreover, agents adapt their risk attitudes while engaging in interactions. Agents with payoffs above (or below) their aspirations will become more risk averse (or risk seeking) in subsequent interactions, wherein risk is defined as the standard deviation of one-move payoffs in the IPD game. In simulation experiments with agents using only own historical payoffs as aspirations (historical comparison), we find that the whole population can achieve a high level of cooperation via the risk attitude adaptation mechanism, in the cases of either local or discriminative interaction models. Meanwhile, when agents use the population’s average payoff as aspirations (social comparison) for adapting risk attitudes, the high level of cooperation can only be sustained in a portion of the population (i.e., partial cooperation). This finding also holds true in both of the heterogeneous scenarios. Considering that payoffs cannot be precisely estimated in a realistic IPD game, simulation experiments are also conducted with a Gaussian disturbance added to the game payoffs. The results reveal that partial cooperation in the population under social comparison is more robust to the variation in payoffs than the global cooperation under historical comparison.

Suggested Citation

  • Weijun Zeng & Minqiang Li & Nan Feng, 2017. "The effects of heterogeneous interaction and risk attitude adaptation on the evolution of cooperation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 435-459, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-016-0489-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-016-0489-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-016-0489-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-016-0489-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wennberg, Karl & Holmquist, Carin, 2008. "Problemistic search and international entrepreneurship," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 441-454, December.
    2. Mark Washburn & Philip Bromiley, 2012. "Comparing Aspiration Models: The Role of Selective Attention," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(5), pages 896-917, July.
    3. Dixon, Huw David, 2000. "Keeping up with the Joneses: competition and the evolution of collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 223-238, October.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Yoella Bereby-Meyer & Alvin E. Roth, 2006. "The Speed of Learning in Noisy Games: Partial Reinforcement and the Sustainability of Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1029-1042, September.
    6. Holland, John H & Miller, John H, 1991. "Artificial Adaptive Agents in Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 365-371, May.
    7. Jacopo Baggio & Elissaios Papyrakis, 2014. "Agent-Based Simulations of Subjective Well-Being," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 623-635, January.
    8. Miller, John H., 1996. "The coevolution of automata in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 87-112, January.
    9. Tackseung Jun & Rajiv Sethi, 2009. "Reciprocity in evolving social networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 379-396, June.
    10. Karolina Safarzyńska & Jeroen Bergh, 2010. "Evolutionary models in economics: a survey of methods and building blocks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 329-373, June.
    11. Chris Snijders & Werner Raub, 1998. "Revolution And Risk," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 405-425, November.
    12. Linda Argote & Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "A Behavioral Theory of the Firm ---40 Years and Counting: Introduction and Impact," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 337-349, June.
    13. Tackseung Jun & Rajiv Sethi, 2008. "Neighborhood structure and the evolution of cooperation," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 103-103, February.
    14. Yang, Jianmei & Lu, Lvping & Xie, Wangdan & Chen, Guanrong & Zhuang, Dong, 2007. "On competitive relationship networks: A new method for industrial competition analysis," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 382(2), pages 704-714.
    15. Matthias Greiff, 2013. "Rewards and the private provision of public goods on dynamic networks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 1001-1021, November.
    16. Chen, Shu-Heng, 2012. "Varieties of agents in agent-based computational economics: A historical and an interdisciplinary perspective," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-25.
    17. Fiegenbaum, Avi, 1990. "Prospect theory and the risk-return association : An empirical examination in 85 industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 187-203, October.
    18. Stahl, Dale O., 2013. "An experimental test of the efficacy of a simple reputation mechanism to solve social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 116-124.
    19. Dale Stahl, 2011. "Cooperation in the sporadically repeated prisoners’ dilemma via reputation mechanisms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 687-702, October.
    20. Christos Ioannou, 2014. "Coevolution of finite automata with errors," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 541-571, July.
    21. Pino G. Audia & Henrich R. Greve, 2006. "Less Likely to Fail: Low Performance, Firm Size, and Factory Expansion in the Shipbuilding Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 83-94, January.
    22. Geoffrey Hodgson & Kainan Huang, 2012. "Evolutionary game theory and evolutionary economics: are they different species?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 345-366, April.
    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. Xia, Ke, 2021. "The characteristics of average abundance function of multi-player threshold public goods evolutionary game model under redistribution mechanism," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 392(C).
    2. Xia, Ke, 2021. "Average abundance function of multi-player threshold public goods without initial endowment evolutionary game model under differential aspiration levels and redistribution mechanism," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Zeng, Weijun & Ai, Hongfeng & Zhao, Man, 2019. "Asymmetrical expectations of future interaction and cooperation in the iterated prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 148-164.
    4. Yu, Fengyuan & Wang, Jianwei & Chen, Wei & He, Jialu, 2023. "Increased cooperation potential and risk under suppressed strategy differentiation," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 621(C).

    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. Elisa Giuliani & Federica Nieri & Andrea Vezzulli, 2019. "BEST IN CLASS BUT BIG WRONGDOERS: Exploring the financial performance and human rights infringe ments nexus in large emerging country companies," Discussion Papers 2019/250, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    2. Pasi Kuusela & Thomas Keil & Markku Maula, 2017. "Driven by aspirations, but in what direction? Performance shortfalls, slack resources, and resource-consuming vs. resource-freeing organizational change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 1101-1120, May.
    3. Michael Lounsbury & Christine M. Beckman, 2015. "Celebrating Organization Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 288-308, March.
    4. Martínez-Noya, Andrea & García-Canal, Esteban, 2021. "Innovation performance feedback and technological alliance portfolio diversity: The moderating role of firms’ R&D intensity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    5. Friederike Wall, 2023. "Modeling managerial search behavior based on Simon’s concept of satisficing," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 265-299, June.
    6. Ref, Ohad & Feldman, Naomi E. & Iyer, Dinesh N & Shapira, Zur, 2021. "Entry into new foreign markets: Performance feedback and opportunity costs," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(6).
    7. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    8. Wood, Aaron D. & Mason, Charles F. & Finnoff, David, 2016. "OPEC, the Seven Sisters, and oil market dominance: An evolutionary game theory and agent-based modeling approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PB), pages 66-78.
    9. Sarkar, Soumodip & Osiyevskyy, Oleksiy, 2018. "Organizational change and rigidity during crisis: A review of the paradox," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 47-58.
    10. Lin-Hua Lu & Poh-Kam Wong, 2019. "Performance feedback, financial slack and the innovation behavior of firms," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 1079-1109, December.
    11. Zeng, Weijun & Ai, Hongfeng & Zhao, Man, 2019. "Asymmetrical expectations of future interaction and cooperation in the iterated prisoner's dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 359(C), pages 148-164.
    12. Wei-Ru Chen, 2008. "Determinants of Firms' Backward- and Forward-Looking R&D Search Behavior," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 609-622, August.
    13. Ploeg, Matthias & Knoben, Joris & Vermeulen, Patrick, 2022. "We are in it together: Communitarianism and the performance-innovation relationship✰," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    14. Ohad Ref & Zur Shapira, 2017. "Entering new markets: The effect of performance feedback near aspiration and well below and above it," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(7), pages 1416-1434, July.
    15. David W. Lehman & Jungpil Hahn, 2013. "Momentum and Organizational Risk Taking: Evidence from the National Football League," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 852-868, April.
    16. Montserrat Manzaneque & Alfonso A. Rojo-Ramírez & Julio Diéguez-Soto & Maria J. Martínez-Romero, 2020. "How negative aspiration performance gaps affect innovation efficiency," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 209-233, January.
    17. Witte, Björn-Christopher, 2012. "Fund managers - Why the best might be the worst: On the evolutionary vigor of risk-seeking behavior," Economics Discussion Papers 2012-20, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    18. Safarzynska, Karolina & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2011. "Beyond replicator dynamics: Innovation-selection dynamics and optimal diversity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 229-245, May.
    19. Casari, Marco, 2008. "Markets in equilibrium with firms out of equilibrium: A simulation study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 261-276, February.
    20. Xu, Kai & Hitt, Michael A. & Dai, Li, 2020. "International diversification of family-dominant firms: Integrating socioemotional wealth and behavioral theory of the firm," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Iterated prisoner’s dilemma; Evolutionary game; Heterogeneous interaction; Adaptive risk attitude; Aspiration and comparison; Agent-based simulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:joevec:v:27:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-016-0489-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.