Cargando…

Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations

Prosocial punishment has been proved to be a powerful mean to promote cooperation. Recent studies have found that social exclusion, which indeed can be regarded as a kind of punishment, can also support cooperation. However, if prosocial punishment and exclusion are both present, it is still unclear...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Linjie, Chen, Xiaojie, Szolnoki, Attila
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28422168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep46634
_version_ 1783229976213979136
author Liu, Linjie
Chen, Xiaojie
Szolnoki, Attila
author_facet Liu, Linjie
Chen, Xiaojie
Szolnoki, Attila
author_sort Liu, Linjie
collection PubMed
description Prosocial punishment has been proved to be a powerful mean to promote cooperation. Recent studies have found that social exclusion, which indeed can be regarded as a kind of punishment, can also support cooperation. However, if prosocial punishment and exclusion are both present, it is still unclear which strategy is more advantageous to curb free-riders. Here we first study the direct competition between different types of punishment and exclusion. We find that pool (peer) exclusion can always outperform pool (peer) punishment both in the optional and in the compulsory public goods game, no matter whether second-order sanctioning is considered or not. Furthermore, peer exclusion does better than pool exclusion both in the optional and in the compulsory game, but the situation is reversed in the presence of second-order exclusion. Finally, we extend the competition among all possible sanctioning strategies and find that peer exclusion can outperform all other strategies in the absence of second-order exclusion and punishment, while pool exclusion prevails when second-order sanctioning is possible. Our results demonstrate that exclusion is a more powerful strategy than punishment for the resolution of social dilemmas.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5395949
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53959492017-04-21 Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations Liu, Linjie Chen, Xiaojie Szolnoki, Attila Sci Rep Article Prosocial punishment has been proved to be a powerful mean to promote cooperation. Recent studies have found that social exclusion, which indeed can be regarded as a kind of punishment, can also support cooperation. However, if prosocial punishment and exclusion are both present, it is still unclear which strategy is more advantageous to curb free-riders. Here we first study the direct competition between different types of punishment and exclusion. We find that pool (peer) exclusion can always outperform pool (peer) punishment both in the optional and in the compulsory public goods game, no matter whether second-order sanctioning is considered or not. Furthermore, peer exclusion does better than pool exclusion both in the optional and in the compulsory game, but the situation is reversed in the presence of second-order exclusion. Finally, we extend the competition among all possible sanctioning strategies and find that peer exclusion can outperform all other strategies in the absence of second-order exclusion and punishment, while pool exclusion prevails when second-order sanctioning is possible. Our results demonstrate that exclusion is a more powerful strategy than punishment for the resolution of social dilemmas. Nature Publishing Group 2017-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5395949/ /pubmed/28422168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep46634 Text en Copyright © 2017, The Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Liu, Linjie
Chen, Xiaojie
Szolnoki, Attila
Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title_full Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title_fullStr Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title_full_unstemmed Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title_short Competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
title_sort competitions between prosocial exclusions and punishments in finite populations
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5395949/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28422168
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep46634
work_keys_str_mv AT liulinjie competitionsbetweenprosocialexclusionsandpunishmentsinfinitepopulations
AT chenxiaojie competitionsbetweenprosocialexclusionsandpunishmentsinfinitepopulations
AT szolnokiattila competitionsbetweenprosocialexclusionsandpunishmentsinfinitepopulations