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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |