Evolution of cooperation with shared costs and benefits.

Joel S Brown, Thomas L Vincent
Author Information
  1. Joel S Brown: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA. squirrel@uic.edu

Abstract

The quest to determine how cooperation evolves can be based on evolutionary game theory, in spite of the fact that evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) for most non-zero-sum games are not cooperative. We analyse the evolution of cooperation for a family of evolutionary games involving shared costs and benefits with a continuum of strategies from non-cooperation to total cooperation. This cost-benefit game allows the cooperator to share in the benefit of a cooperative act, and the recipient to be burdened with a share of the cooperator's cost. The cost-benefit game encompasses the Prisoner's Dilemma, Snowdrift game and Partial Altruism. The models produce ESS solutions of total cooperation, partial cooperation, non-cooperation and coexistence between cooperation and non-cooperation. Cooperation emerges from an interplay between the nonlinearities in the cost and benefit functions. If benefits increase at a decelerating rate and costs increase at an accelerating rate with the degree of cooperation, then the ESS has an intermediate level of cooperation. The game also exhibits non-ESS points such as unstable minima, convergent-stable minima and unstable maxima. The emergence of cooperative behaviour in this game represents enlightened self-interest, whereas non-cooperative solutions illustrate the Tragedy of the Commons. Games having either a stable maximum or a stable minimum have the property that small changes in the incentive structure (model parameter values) or culture (starting frequencies of strategies) result in correspondingly small changes in the degree of cooperation. Conversely, with unstable maxima or unstable minima, small changes in the incentive structure or culture can result in a switch from non-cooperation to total cooperation (and vice versa). These solutions identify when human or animal societies have the potential for cooperation and whether cooperation is robust or fragile.

References

  1. J Evol Biol. 2007 Mar;20(2):415-32 [PMID: 17305808]
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Dec 7;274(1628):2965-70 [PMID: 17895227]
  3. Am Nat. 2006 Aug;168(2):252-62 [PMID: 16874634]
  4. Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1560-3 [PMID: 17158317]
  5. Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8 [PMID: 16251955]
  6. Science. 1968 Dec 13;162(3859):1243-8 [PMID: 5699198]
  7. Theor Popul Biol. 2005 Feb;67(1):47-59 [PMID: 15649523]
  8. J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):485-510 [PMID: 8691082]
  9. J Evol Biol. 2006 Sep;19(5):1377-9; discussion 1426-36 [PMID: 16910959]
  10. Am Nat. 2002 Oct;160(4):421-38 [PMID: 18707520]
  11. Science. 2004 Oct 29;306(5697):859-62 [PMID: 15514155]
  12. J Theor Biol. 1999 Oct 7;200(3):307-21 [PMID: 10527720]
  13. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390-6 [PMID: 7466396]
  14. J Theor Biol. 1997 Apr 7;185(3):333-43 [PMID: 9156083]

MeSH Term

Biological Evolution
Cooperative Behavior
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Game Theory
Humans
Models, Genetic

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cooperationgamenon-cooperationunstablestablestrategiesESScooperativecostsbenefitstotalsolutionsminimasmallchangescanevolutionarygamessharedcost-benefitsharebenefitcostincreaseratedegreemaximaincentivestructurecultureresultquestdetermineevolvesbasedtheoryspitefactevolutionarilynon-zero-sumanalyseevolutionfamilyinvolvingcontinuumallowscooperatoractrecipientburdenedcooperator'sencompassesPrisoner'sDilemmaSnowdriftPartialAltruismmodelsproducepartialcoexistenceCooperationemergesinterplaynonlinearitiesfunctionsdeceleratingacceleratingintermediatelevelalsoexhibitsnon-ESSpointsconvergent-stableemergencebehaviourrepresentsenlightenedself-interestwhereasnon-cooperativeillustrateTragedyCommonsGameseithermaximumminimumpropertymodelparametervaluesstartingfrequenciescorrespondinglyConverselyswitchviceversaidentifyhumananimalsocietiespotentialwhetherrobustfragileEvolution

Similar Articles

Cited By