ArticleScientific reports2016
Individual wealth-based selection supports cooperation in spatial public goods games.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nonlinear eco-evolutionary games with global environmental fluctuations and local environmental feedbacks.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- The dynamics of cooperation, power, and inequality in a group-structured society.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cooperation and competition between pair and multi-player social games in spatial populations.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- How strategy environment and wealth shape altruistic behaviour: cooperation rules affecting wealth distribution in dynamic networks.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Inequality as information: Wealth homophily facilitates the evolution of cooperation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Evolution of Cooperation with Heterogeneous Conditional Cooperators.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Evolution of joint cooperation under phenotypic variations.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- An optimal strategy to solve the Prisoner's Dilemma.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Conditional punishment is a double-edged sword in promoting cooperation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- The co-evolution of networks and prisoner's dilemma game by considering sensitivity and visibility.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- The promotion of cooperation by the poor in dynamic chicken games.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a social dilemma game group members are allowed to decide if they contribute to the joint venture or not. As a consequence, defectors, who do not invest but only enjoy the mutual benefit, prevail and the system evolves onto the tragedy of the common state. This unfortunate scenario can be avoided if participation is not obligatory but only happens with a given probability. But what if we also consider a player's individual wealth when to decide about participation? To address this issue we propose a model in which the probabilistic participation in the public goods game is combined with a conditional investment mode that is based on individual wealth: if a player's wealth exceeds a threshold value then it is qualified and can participate in the joint venture. Otherwise, the participation is forbidden in the investment interactions. We show that if only probabilistic participation is considered, spatially structured populations cannot support cooperation better than well-mixed populations where full defection state can also be avoided for small participation probabilities. By adding the wealth-based criterion of participation, however, structured populations are capable to augment network reciprocity relevantly and allow cooperator strategy to dominate in a broader parameter interval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.