Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25893241›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Group Cooperation without Group Selection: Modest Punishment Can Recruit Much Cooperation.

Max M Krasnow, Andrew W Delton, Leda Cosmides, John Tooby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
19.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Perspectives on behavior science · 2019
    Article
  5. Toddlers and infants expect individuals to refrain from helping an ingroup victim's aggressor.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  6. Moral Challenges for Psychologists Working in Psychology and Law.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2018
    Article
  7. Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Max M KrasnowDepartment of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Andrew W DeltonDepartment of Political Science, College of Business, Center for Behavioral Political Economy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, United States of America.
Leda CosmidesCenter for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America; Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
John ToobyCenter for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America; Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
University of California, Santa Barbara · USHarvard University Press · USStony Brook University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans everywhere cooperate in groups to achieve benefits not attainable by individuals. Individual effort is often not automatically tied to a proportionate share of group benefits. This decoupling allows for free-riding, a strategy that (absent countermeasures) outcompetes cooperation. Empirically and formally, punishment potentially solves the evolutionary puzzle of group cooperation. Nevertheless, standard analyses appear to show that punishment alone is insufficient, because second-order free riders (those who cooperate but do not punish) can be shown to outcompete punishers. Consequently, many have concluded that other processes, such as cultural or genetic group selection, are required. Here, we present a series of agent-based simulations that show that group cooperation sustained by punishment easily evolves by individual selection when you introduce into standard models more biologically plausible assumptions about the social ecology and psychology of ancestral humans. We relax three unrealistic assumptions of past models. First, past models assume all punishers must punish every act of free riding in their group. We instead allow punishment to be probabilistic, meaning punishers can evolve to only punish some free riders some of the time. This drastically lowers the cost of punishment as group size increases. Second, most models unrealistically do not allow punishment to recruit labor; punishment merely reduces the punished agent's fitness. We instead realistically allow punished free riders to cooperate in the future to avoid punishment. Third, past models usually restrict agents to interact in a single group their entire lives. We instead introduce realistic social ecologies in which agents participate in multiple, partially overlapping groups. Because of this, punitive tendencies are more expressed and therefore more exposed to natural selection. These three moves toward greater model realism reveal that punishment and cooperation easily evolve by direct selection--even in sizeable groups.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorGroup ProcessesBiological EvolutionComputer SimulationGame TheoryHumansInterpersonal RelationsProbabilityPunishmentSocial Environment

Identifiers

PMID25893241
PMCPMC4404356
OpenAlexW2063728994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.