Abstract:Reputations can foster cooperation by indirect reciprocity: if I am good to you then others will be good to me. But this mechanism for cooperation in one-shot interactions only works when people agree on who is good and who is bad. Errors in actions or assessments can produce disagreements about reputations, which can unravel the positive feedback loop between social standing and pro-social behaviour. Cooperators can end up punished and defectors rewarded. Public reputation systems and empathy are two possible mechanisms to promote agreement about reputations. Here we suggest an alternative: Bayesian reasoning by observers. By taking into account the probabilities of errors in action and observation and their prior beliefs about the prevalence of good people in the population, observers can use Bayesian reasoning to determine whether or not someone is good. To study this scenario, we develop an evolutionary game theoretical model in which players use Bayesian reasoning to assess reputations, either publicly or privately. We explore this model analytically and numerically for five social norms (Scoring, Shunning, Simple Standing, Staying, and Stern Judging). We systematically compare results to the case when agents do not use reasoning in determining reputations. We find that Bayesian reasoning reduces cooperation relative to non-reasoning, except in the case of the Scoring norm. Under Scoring, Bayesian reasoning can promote coexistence of three strategic types. Additionally, we study the effects of optimistic or pessimistic biases in individual beliefs about the degree of cooperation in the population. We find that optimism generally undermines cooperation whereas pessimism can, in some cases, promote cooperation. Cooperation is an important part of our social lives. However, selfish incentives can undermine it: I need not reciprocate with someone who has cooperated with me. One mechanism to promote cooperation is indirect reciprocity, wherein cooperation is rewarded by good reputations and defection punished by bad ones. This reward is provided indirectly, when other individuals cooperate with those of good reputation and defect against those with a bad reputation. Maintaining accurate reputations is a key part of this mechanism, since mistakes in evaluating others' behaviours and disagreements about reputations can undermine the feedback loop between reputations and cooperation. Here we develop a model of individual reasoning that can correct for such mistakes and disagreements, and we explore how this impacts the level of cooperation. We find that individual reasoning to determine accurate reputations can often undermine cooperation.

Indirect reciprocity in the public goods game with collective reputations

Reputation-dependent social learning on the evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods games

Ingroup favoritism and intergroup cooperation under indirect reciprocity based on group reputation

Reputation-based Mutual Selection Rule Promotes Cooperation in Spatial Threshold Public Goods Games

Inter-group Payoff Transfer Driven by Collective Reputation Promotes Cooperation in Public Goods Game

Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game

Role of reputation constraints in the spatial public goods game with second-order reputation evaluation

Indirect reciprocity with stochastic rules

Inferring reputation promotes the evolution of cooperation in spatial social dilemma games

Dynamic indirect reciprocity: The influence of personal reputation and group reputation on cooperative behavior in nested social dilemmas

Evolutionary stability of cooperation by the leading eight norms in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment

Cooperative Emergence of Spatial Public Goods Games with Reputation Discount Accumulation

The evolution of cooperation in spatial public goods game with tolerant punishment based on reputation threshold

Keeping or Reversing Social Norms Promote Cooperation by Enhancing Indirect Reciprocity

How to Evaluate One's Behavior Toward ‘bad’ Individuals? Exploring Good Social Norms in Promoting Cooperation in Spatial Public Goods Games

Reputation Evaluation with Tolerance and Reputation-Dependent Imitation on Cooperation in Spatial Public Goods Game

Evolution of Cooperation in the Spatial Public Goods Game with the Third-Order Reputation Evaluation

Withhold-judgment and Punishment Promote Cooperation in Indirect Reciprocity under Incomplete Information

Indirect reciprocity with Bayesian reasoning and biases

Indirect reciprocity with private, noisy, and incomplete information

Effect of Reputation-Based Heterogeneous Investment on Cooperation in Spatial Public Goods Game