Abstract
The emergence of cooperation in social dilemmas is a core question in the social sciences, the proposed solution being ingroup favoritism, a conditional strategy where individuals only cooperate with members of their own group. However, empirical literature has suggested that ingroup favoritism prevents one from realizing profitable interactions with outgroup members. Such an observation calls for a theoretical analysis that would help in understanding what factors affect the transition from ingroup favoritism to unconditional cooperation. Here, we conducted computational experiments in which agents located in social networks imitate traits of successful neighbors or sever social ties with defecting neighbors and connect them to other agents. The results of our simulation showed transitions from unconditional defection to ingroup favoritism to unconditional cooperation with a more frequent occurrence of link rewiring. This indicates the usefulness of the dynamic-networks framework in understanding the reason why cooperation is achieved in specific societies and why different types of cooperation are observed in different ones.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Because cooperation with ingroup members was presumed in this study, this rule was similar to the assumption that agents cut relationships with outgroup members.
In [34], the dissimilarity between agents i and j (\(d_{ij}\)) is calculated by the two agents’ tags. Agent i compares this dissimilarity with his/her tolerance level (\(t_i\)) and chooses cooperation if the neighbor (j) is sufficiently similar (i.e., \(d_{ij} < t_{i}\)). The focal agent cuts the link to his/her neighbor if he/she chooses defection (i.e., \(d_{ij} \ge t_i\)).
In [34], a link forms between the focal agent (i) and a potential new neighbor (n) if \(d_{in} < t_{i}\) and \(d_{in} < t_{n}\). This notation mimics that of footnote 2.
The replication material of the simulation will be available on the author’s web page.
We computed the effective number of tags in the population as the index of tag diversity (see [36], for this index). Specifically, I computed \(1/\sum _{g} p_g^2\), where \(p_g\) is the proportion of agents who adopt tag g. For example, this index takes the value of n when the population is occupied by n equal-sized groups.
References
Adams, G. (2005). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Enemyship in North American and West African worlds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 948–968.
Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Easterly, W. (1999). Public goods and ethnic divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1243–1284.
Algan, Y., Hémet, C., & Laitin, D. D. (2016). The social effects of ethnic diversity at the local level: A natural experiment with exogenous residential allocation. Journal of Political Economy, 124(3), 696–733.
Antonioni, A., Sánchez, A., & Tomassini, M. (2016). Cooperation survives and cheating pays in a dynamic network structure with unreliable reputation. Scientific Reports, 6(May), 27160.
Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature, 481(7382), 497–501.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation 1984. New York: Basic Books.
Axelrod, R. (1997). The dissemination of culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(2), 203–226.
Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(7105), 912–915.
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298.
Centola, D., Gonzalez-Avella, J. C., Eguíluz, V. M., & San Miguel, M. (2007). Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6), 905–929.
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113(3), 702–734.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how they shape our lives. New York: Little, Brown & Company.
Cuesta, J. A., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Ferrer, A., Moreno, Y., & Sánchez, A. (2015). Reputation drives cooperative behaviour and network formation in human groups. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 7843.
Diekmann, A., Jann, B., Przepiorka, W., & Wehrli, S. (2014). Reputation formation and the evolution of cooperation in anonymous online markets. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 65–85.
Efferson, C., Lalive, R., & Fehr, E. (2008). The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Science, 321(5897), 1844–1849.
Eguíluz, V. M., Zimmermann, M. G., Cela-Conde, C. J., & Miguel, M. S. (2005). Cooperation and the emergence of role differentiation in the dynamics of social networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 977–1008.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–91.
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Local convergence and global diversity: From interpersonal to social influence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(6), 970–995.
Flache, A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Small worlds and cultural polarization. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 35(1–3), 146–176.
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., et al. (2017). Models of social influence: Towards the next frontiers. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 20(4), 3521.
Fu, F., Hauert, C., Nowak, M. A., & Wang, L. (2008). Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks. Physical Review E, 78(2), 026117.
Fu, F., Tarnita, C. E., Christakis, N. A., Wang, L., Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Evolution of in-group favoritism. Scientific Reports, 2, 460.
Fu, F., Wu, T., & Wang, L. (2009). Partner switching stabilizes cooperation in coevolutionary prisoner’s dilemma. Physical Review E, 79(3), 036101.
Gallo, E., & Yan, C. (2015). The effects of reputational and social knowledge on cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(12), 201415883.
Gao, J., Li, Z., Wu, T., & Wang, L. (2011). The coevolutionary ultimatum game. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 93(4), 48003.
García, J., Veelen, M. V., & Traulsen, A. (2014). Evil green beards : Tag recognition can also be used to withhold cooperation in structured populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 360, 181–186.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101(04), 709–725.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., & Szabó, G. (2010). Defector-accelerated cooperativeness and punishment in public goods games with mutations. Physical Review E, 81(5), 057104.
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 301–310.
Jackson, M. O. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kim, J. W. (2010). A tag-based evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma game on networks with different topologies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 13(3), 1–20.
Kim, J. W., & Hanneman, R. A. (2014). Coevolutionary dynamics of cultural markers, parochial cooperation, and networks. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(2), 226–253.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183–214.
Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). “Effective” number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Computer Political Studies, 12(1), 3–27.
Larson, J. M., & Lewis, J. I. (2017). Ethnic networks. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 350–364.
Li, L. M. W., Adams, G., Kurtiş, T., & Hamamura, T. (2015). Beware of friends: The cultural psychology of relational mobility and cautious intimacy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 124–133.
Macy, M., & Tsvetkova, M. (2015). The signal importance of noise. Sociological Methods and Research, 44(2), 306–328.
Macy, M. W., & Flache, A. (2002). Learning dynamics in social dilemmas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(Supplement 3), 7229–7236.
Masuda, N. (2012). Ingroup favoritism and intergroup cooperation under indirect reciprocity based on group reputation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 311, 8–18.
Masuda, N., & Fu, F. (2015). Evolutionary models of in-group favoritism. F1000Prime Reports, 7(March), 1–12.
Masuda, N., & Ohtsuki, H. (2007). Tag-based indirect reciprocity by incomplete social information. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 689–695.
McConnell, C., Margalit, Y., Malhotra, N., & Levendusky, M. (2018). The economic consequences of partisanship in a polarized era. American Journal of Political Science, 62(1), 5–18.
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.
Nowak, M. A., & May, R. M. (1992). Evolutionary games and spatial chaos. Nature, 359(6398), 826–829.
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194(4), 561–574.
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092), 502–505.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action : public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–417.
Pacheco, J. M., Traulsen, A., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. Physical Review Letters, 97(25), 258103.
Perc, M., Jordan, J. J., Rand, D. G., Wang, Z., Boccaletti, S., & Szolnoki, A. (2017). Statistical physics of human cooperation. Physics Reports, 687, 1–51.
Perc, M., & Szolnoki, A. (2010). Coevolutionary games—A mini review. Biosystems, 99(2), 109–125.
Pinheiro, F. L., Santos, F. C., & Pacheco, J. M. (2016). Linking individual and collective behavior in adaptive social networks. Physical Review Letters, 116(12), 128702.
Przepiorka, W., Norbutas, L., & Corten, R. (2017). Order without law: Reputation promotes cooperation in a cryptomarket for illegal drugs. European Sociological Review, 33(6), 752–764.
Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., & Christakis, N. A. (2011). Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(48), 19193–19198.
Riolo, R. L., Cohen, M. D., & Axelrod, R. (2001). Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature, 414(6862), 441–443.
Sánchez, A. (2018). Physics of human cooperation: experimental evidence and theoretical models. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2, 024001.
Santos, F. C., & Pacheco, J. M. (2005). Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical Review Letters, 95(9), 098104.
Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M., & Lenaerts, T. (2006). Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(10), e140.
Santos, F. C., Rodrigues, J., & Pacheco, J. M. (2005). Epidemic spreading and cooperation dynamics on homogeneous small-world networks. Physical Review E, 72(5), 056128.
Santos, F. C., Rodrigues, J. F., & Pacheco, J. M. (2006). Graph topology plays a determinant role in the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 273(1582), 51–55.
Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1471–1478.
Shirado, H., Fu, F., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2013). Quality versus quantity of social ties in experimental cooperative networks. Nature Communications, 4(1), 2814.
Siegel, D. A. (2009). Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 122–138.
Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 43–63.
Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. (2017). Spontaneous collective action: Peripheral mobilization during the arab spring. American Political Science Review, 111(2), 379–403.
Szolnoki, A., & Perc, M. (2009). Promoting cooperation in social dilemmas via simple coevolutionary rules. The European Physical Journal B, 67(3), 337–344.
Szolnoki, A., & Perc, M. (2017). Second-order free-riding on antisocial punishment restores the effectiveness of prosocial punishment. Physical Review X, 7(4), 041027.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102.
Takesue, H. (2018). Evolutionary prisoner’s dilemma games on the network with punishment and opportunistic partner switching. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 121(4), 48005.
Takesue, H. (2019). Effects of updating rules on the coevolving prisoner’s dilemma. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 513, 399–408.
Takesue, H., Ozawa, A., & Morikawa, S. (2017). Evolution of favoritism and group fairness in a co-evolving three-person ultimatum game. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 118(4), 48002.
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., & Ito, N. (2015). Computers in Human Behavior A socio-ecological approach to national differences in online privacy concern : The role of relational mobility and trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 285–292.
Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A.H., Becker, J.C., Becker, M., Chiu, C.y., Choi, H.S., Ferreira, C.M., Fülöp, M., Gul, P., Houghton-Illera, A.M., Joasoo, M., Jong, J., Kavanagh, C.M., Khutkyy, D., Manzi, C., Marcinkowska, U.M., Milfont, T.L., Neto, F., von Oertzen, T., Pliskin, R., San Martin, A., Singh, P., & Visserman, M.L. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(29), 7521–7526.
Traulsen, A., & Claussen, J. C. (2004). Similarity-based cooperation and spatial segregation. Physical Review E, 70(4), 046128.
Watts, D. J. (2004). The “new” science of networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 243–270.
Yakubovich, V. (2005). Weak ties, information, and influence: How workers find jobs in a local russian labor market. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 408–421.
Yamagishi, T. (2011). Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo: Springer.
Yang, Z., Li, Z., Wu, T., & Wang, L. (2013). Effects of adaptive dynamical linking in networked games. Physical Review E, 88(4), 042128.
Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A. Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches (pp. 137–151). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Zhang, C. Y., Zhang, J. L., Xie, G. M., & Wang, L. (2011). Coevolving agent strategies and network topology for the public goods games. European Physical Journal B, 80(2), 217–222.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Takesue, H. From defection to ingroup favoritism to cooperation: simulation analysis of the social dilemma in dynamic networks. J Comput Soc Sc 3, 189–207 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00058-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00058-4