Johns Hopkins University.
Artif Life. 2014 Spring;20(2):207-21. doi: 10.1162/ARTL_a_00126. Epub 2014 Feb 4.
Social dilemmas have long been studied formally as cooperation games that pit individual gains against those of the group. In the real world, individuals face an ecology of games where they play many such games simultaneously, often with overlapping co-players. Here, we study an agent-based model of an ecology of public goods games and compare the effectiveness of two institutional mechanisms for promoting cooperation: a simple institution of limited group size (capacity constraints) and a reputational institution based on observed behavior. Reputation is shown to allow much higher relative payoffs for cooperators than do capacity constraints, but only if (1) the rate of reputational information flow is fast enough relative to the rate of social mobility, and (2) cooperators are relatively common in the population. When these conditions are not met, capacity constraints are more effective at protecting the interests of cooperators. Because of the simplicity of the limited-group-size rule, capacity constraints can also generate social organization, which promotes cooperation much more quickly than can reputation. Our results are discussed in terms of both normative prescriptions and evolutionary theory regarding institutions that regulate cooperation. More broadly, the ecology-of-games approach developed here provides an adaptable modeling framework for studying a wide variety of problems in the social sciences.
社会困境长期以来一直被作为合作博弈来进行形式化研究,这些博弈将个人收益与群体收益相对立。在现实世界中,个体面临着一个博弈生态系统,他们同时参与许多这样的博弈,通常与重叠的共同参与者一起。在这里,我们研究了一个基于主体的公共物品博弈生态系统模型,并比较了两种促进合作的制度机制的有效性:一种是简单的有限群体规模机构(容量约束),另一种是基于观察到的行为的声誉机构。结果表明,声誉机构允许合作者获得比容量约束机构更高的相对收益,但前提是(1)声誉信息流的速度相对于社会流动性的速度足够快,(2)在种群中,合作者相对常见。当这些条件不满足时,容量约束在保护合作者的利益方面更为有效。由于有限群体规模规则的简单性,容量约束也可以产生社会组织,这比声誉更能促进合作。我们的结果从规范建议和进化理论两个方面讨论了调节合作的制度。更广泛地说,这里开发的博弈生态系统方法为研究社会科学中的各种问题提供了一个适应性强的建模框架。