IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2010-57-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scale-Free Relationships Facilitate Cooperation in Spatial Games with Sequential Strategy

Author

Abstract

Recently, the area of study of spatial game continuously has extended, and researchers have especially presented a lot of works of coevolutionary mechanism. We have recognized coevolutionary mechanism as one of the factors for the promotion of cooperation like five rules by Nowak. However, those studies still deal with the optimal response (best decision). The best decision is persuasive in most cases, but does not apply to all situations in the real world. Contemplating that question, researchers have presented some works discussing not only the best decision but also the second-best decision. Those studies compare the results between the best and the second-best, and also state the applicability of the second-best decision. This study, considering that trend, has extended the match between two groups to spatial game with the second-best decision. This extended model expresses relationships of groups as a spatial network, and every group matches other groups of relationships. Then, we examine how mutual cooperation changes in each case where either we add probabilistic perturbation to relationships or ties form various types of the structure. As a result, unlike most results utilizing the best decision, probabilistic perturbation does not induce any change. On the other hand, when ties are the scale-free structure, mutual cooperation is enhanced like the case of the best decision. When we probe the evolution of strategies in that case, groups with many ties play a role for leading the direction of decision as a whole. This role appears without explicit assignment. In the discussion, we also state that the presented model has an analogy to the real situation, collusive tendering.

Suggested Citation

  • Tetsushi Ohdaira & Takao Terano, 2011. "Scale-Free Relationships Facilitate Cooperation in Spatial Games with Sequential Strategy," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(3), pages 1-3.
    • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2010-57-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/14/3/3/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tetsushi Ohdaira & Takao Terano, 2011. "The Diversity In The Decision Facilitates Cooperation In The Sequential Prisoner'S Dilemma Game," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(03), pages 377-401.
    2. Francisco C. Santos & Marta D. Santos & Jorge M. Pacheco, 2008. "Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games," Nature, Nature, vol. 454(7201), pages 213-216, July.
    3. Karthik Panchanathan & Robert Boyd, 2004. "Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem," Nature, Nature, vol. 432(7016), pages 499-502, November.
    4. McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1992. "Bidding Rings," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 579-599, June.
      • McAfee, R. Preston & McMillan, John., 1990. "Bidding Rings," Working Papers 726, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    5. Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Une, Masashi & Yamaguchi, Toru, 1996. ""Dango" Experiments," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, March.
    6. Hisashi Ohtsuki & Yoh Iwasa & Martin A. Nowak, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment," Nature, Nature, vol. 457(7225), pages 79-82, January.
    7. Rick L. Riolo & Michael D. Cohen & Robert Axelrod, 2001. "Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 414(6862), pages 441-443, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tetsushi Ohdaira & Takao Terano, 2009. "Cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game Based on the Second-Best Decision," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 12(4), pages 1-7.
    2. Zhenghong Wu & Huan Huang & Qinghu Liao, 2021. "The study on the role of dedicators on promoting cooperation in public goods game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-17, September.
    3. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Wang, Jianwei & Xu, Wenshu & Chen, Wei & Yu, Fengyuan & He, Jialu, 2021. "Inter-group selection of strategy promotes cooperation in public goods game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    5. Wang, Chengjiang & Wang, Li & Wang, Juan & Sun, Shiwen & Xia, Chengyi, 2017. "Inferring the reputation enhances the cooperation in the public goods game on interdependent lattices," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 293(C), pages 18-29.
    6. Li, Yixiao & Jin, Xiaogang & Su, Xianchuang & Kong, Fansheng & Peng, Chengbin, 2010. "Cooperation and charity in spatial public goods game under different strategy update rules," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(5), pages 1090-1098.
    7. Quan, Ji & Nie, Jiacheng & Chen, Wenman & Wang, Xianjia, 2022. "Keeping or reversing social norms promote cooperation by enhancing indirect reciprocity," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Dimitris Iliopoulos & Arend Hintze & Christoph Adami, 2010. "Critical Dynamics in the Evolution of Stochastic Strategies for the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-8, October.
    9. Wang, Zhen & Chen, Tong & Wang, Yongjie, 2017. "Leadership by example promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 100-105.
    10. Chang, Shuhua & Zhang, Zhipeng & Wu, Yu’e & Xie, Yunya, 2018. "Cooperation is enhanced by inhomogeneous inertia in spatial prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 419-425.
    11. Zhuang, Qian & Wang, Dong & Fan, Ying & Di, Zengru, 2012. "Evolution of cooperation in a heterogeneous population with influential individuals," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 391(4), pages 1735-1741.
    12. Chen, Qiao & Chen, Tong & Wang, Yongjie, 2017. "Publishing the donation list incompletely promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 310(C), pages 48-56.
    13. Chen, Qiao & Chen, Tong & Wang, Yongjie, 2019. "Cleverly handling the donation information can promote cooperation in public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 363-373.
    14. Ding, Rui & Wang, Xianjia & Liu, Yang & Zhao, Jinhua & Gu, Cuiling, 2023. "Evolutionary games with environmental feedbacks under an external incentive mechanism," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    15. Mohammad Salahshour, 2021. "Freedom to choose between public resources promotes cooperation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-15, February.
    16. Su, Qi & Li, Aming & Wang, Long, 2017. "Spatial structure favors cooperative behavior in the snowdrift game with multiple interactive dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 468(C), pages 299-306.
    17. Angelo Antoci & Luca Zarri, 2015. "Punish and perish?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 27(2), pages 195-223, May.
    18. Kroumi, Dhaker & Lessard, Sabin, 2015. "Evolution of cooperation in a multidimensional phenotype space," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 60-75.
    19. Matthijs van Veelen & Benjamin Allen & Moshe Hoffman & Burton Simon & Carl Veller, 2016. "Inclusive Fitness," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-055/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Gao, Meng & Li, Zhi & Wu, Te, 2023. "Evolutionary dynamics of friendship-driven reputation strategies," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 175(P1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2010-57-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.