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.

Effects of co-players' identity and reputation in the public goods game

The impact of current and historical reputation with non-uniform change on cooperation in spatial public goods game

The influence of environment-based reputation on cooperation in spatial prisoner's dilemma game

Asymmetric effects of social and economic incentives on cooperation in real effort based public goods games

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

Cooperative Emergence of Spatial Public Goods Games with Reputation Discount Accumulation

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

Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks.

Cooperation and social organization depend on weighing private and public reputations

Gossip and competitive altruism support cooperation in a Public Good game

The Name of the Game: Predictive Power of Reputations versus Situational Labels in Determining Prisoner’s Dilemma Game Moves

Reputation preferences resolve social dilemmas in spatial multigames

Indirect reciprocity in the public goods game with collective reputations

Partner selection supported by opaque reputation promotes cooperative behavior

Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels

Coevolution of social norms and cooperation in public and private situations

Reputation and Punishment sustain cooperation in the Optional Public Goods Game

One step memory of group reputation is optimal to promote cooperation in public goods games

Reputation and reciprocity

Indirect reciprocity with Bayesian reasoning and biases

Long-term evidence on cooperation and cultural differences in public goods dilemmas