ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2017
Evidence for strategic cooperation in humans.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-cultural evidence that shame is a defense against reputational damage.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The role of future planning, patience, and risk tolerance for prospective reciprocity in human adults.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Intuitive and deliberative processes underlying commitment signaling for cooperative assortment.iScience · 2026Article
- The role of facial cues in signalling cooperativeness is limited and nuanced.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Investigating the effects of social information on spite in an online game.Evolutionary human sciences · 2024Article
- Association between Cooperative Attitude and High-Risk Behaviors on the Spread of COVID-19 Infection among Medical Students in Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The restart effect in social dilemmas shows humans are self-interested not altruistic.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Misrepresentation of group contributions undermines conditional cooperation in a human decision making experiment.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Advertising cooperative phenotype through costly signals facilitates collective action.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- Self-interested learning is more important than fair-minded conditional cooperation in public-goods games.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Article
- A preference to learn from successful rather than common behaviours in human social dilemmas.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Payoff-based learning best explains the rate of decline in cooperation across 237 public-goods games.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Evolution of conditional cooperation in public good games.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Evolution of Cooperation with Heterogeneous Conditional Cooperators.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Evidence for strategic cooperation in humans.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 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
Humans may cooperate strategically, cooperating at higher levels than expected from their short-term interests, to try and stimulate others to cooperate. To test this hypothesis, we experimentally manipulated the extent an individual's behaviour is known to others, and hence whether or not strategic cooperation is possible. In contrast with many previous studies, we avoided confounding factors by preventing individuals from learning during the game about either pay-offs or about how other individuals behave. We found clear evidence for strategic cooperators-just telling some individuals that their groupmates would be informed about their behaviour led to them tripling their initial level of cooperation, from 17 to 50%. We also found that many individuals play as if they do not understand the game, and their presence obscures the detection of strategic cooperation. Identifying such players allowed us to detect and study strategic motives for cooperation in novel, more powerful, ways.
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.