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.

Institutions of public judgment established by social contract and taxation

Adherence to public institutions that foster cooperation

Can institutions foster cooperation by wealth redistribution?

Indirect reciprocity with Bayesian reasoning and biases

Tit for Tattling: Cooperation, communication, and how each could stabilize the other

Norms prioritizing positive assessments are likely to maintain cooperation in private indirect reciprocity

Evolution of social norms for moral judgment

Indirect reciprocity under opinion synchronization

Cooperation under Institutional Incentives with Perfect and Imperfect Observation

The evolution of private reputations in information-abundant landscapes

Indirect reciprocity with stochastic rules

Voting by Hands Promotes Institutionalised Monitoring in Indirect Reciprocity

Indirect reciprocity with simple records

Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem

Simple Records Support Robust Indirect Reciprocity

Indirect reciprocity in the public goods game with collective reputations

Corruption drives the emergence of civil society

Does it Take a Tyrant to Implement a Good Reform?

Costly punishment sustains indirect reciprocity under low defection detectability

The Other Side of the Coin: Recipient Norms and Their Impact on Indirect Reciprocity and Cooperation

A mechanistic model of gossip, reputations, and cooperation