ArticleNature communications2018
Crosstalk in concurrent repeated games impedes direct reciprocity and requires stronger levels of forgiveness.
Article in Nature communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promoters of cooperation in evolutionary games.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Dynamics of cooperation in concurrent games.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Efficiency and resilience of cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Personal sustained cooperation based on networked evolutionary game theory.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Adaptive dynamics of memory-one strategies in the repeated donation game.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Mutation enhances cooperation in direct reciprocity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Direct reciprocity between individuals that use different strategy spaces.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Cooperation in alternating interactions with memory constraints.Nature communications · 2022Article
- A unified framework of direct and indirect reciprocity.Nature human behaviour · 2021Article
- Evolving cooperation in multichannel games.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Social dilemmas among unequals.Nature · 2019Article
- Indirect reciprocity with private, noisy, and incomplete information.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Spillover modes in multiplex games: double-edged effects on cooperation and their coevolution.Scientific reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Direct reciprocity is a mechanism for cooperation among humans. Many of our daily interactions are repeated. We interact repeatedly with our family, friends, colleagues, members of the local and even global community. In the theory of repeated games, it is a tacit assumption that the various games that a person plays simultaneously have no effect on each other. Here we introduce a general framework that allows us to analyze "crosstalk" between a player's concurrent games. In the presence of crosstalk, the action a person experiences in one game can alter the person's decision in another. We find that crosstalk impedes the maintenance of cooperation and requires stronger levels of forgiveness. The magnitude of the effect depends on the population structure. In more densely connected social groups, crosstalk has a stronger effect. A harsh retaliator, such as Tit-for-Tat, is unable to counteract crosstalk. The crosstalk framework provides a unified interpretation of direct and upstream reciprocity in the context of repeated games.
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.