ArticleScientific reports2016
Evolution of cooperation under indirect reciprocity and arbitrary exploration rates.
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 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- How large language models judge and influence human cooperation.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Strategic competition in informal risk-sharing mechanisms versus collective index insurance.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Evolution of indirect reciprocity under emotion expression.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Norms prioritizing positive assessments are likely to maintain cooperation in private indirect reciprocity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A mechanistic model of gossip, reputations, and cooperation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Evolution of norms for judging social behavior.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Evolutionary stability of cooperation in indirect reciprocity under noisy and private assessment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- The complexity of human cooperation under indirect reciprocity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Review
- Local reputation, local selection, and the leading eight norms.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Adherence to public institutions that foster cooperation.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Stable leaders pave the way for cooperation under time-dependent exploration rates.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Article
- Evolution of empathetic moral evaluation.eLife · 2019Article
- Experimental evidence of selective inattention in reputation-based cooperation.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Symmetric Decomposition of Asymmetric Games.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Off-line synthesis of evolutionarily stable normative systems.Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems · 2018Article
- Tolerant indirect reciprocity can boost social welfare through solidarity with unconditional cooperators in private monitoring.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cooperation has been recognized as an evolutionary puzzle since Darwin, and remains identified as one of the biggest challenges of the XXIst century. Indirect Reciprocity (IR), a key mechanism that humans employ to cooperate with each other, establishes that individual behaviour depends on reputations, which in turn evolve depending on social norms that classify behaviours as good or bad. While it is well known that different social norms give rise to distinct cooperation levels, it remains unclear how the performance of each norm is influenced by the random exploration of new behaviours, often a key component of social dynamics where a plethora of stimuli may compel individuals to deviate from pre-defined behaviours. Here we study, for the first time, the impact of varying degrees of exploration rates - the likelihood of spontaneously adopting another strategy, akin to a mutation probability in evolutionary dynamics - in the emergence of cooperation under IR. We show that high exploration rates may either improve or harm cooperation, depending on the underlying social norm at work. Regarding some of the most popular social norms studied to date, we find that cooperation under Simple-standing and Image-score is enhanced by high exploration rates, whereas the opposite occurs for Stern-judging and Shunning.
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.