Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35853937›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Misrepresentation of group contributions undermines conditional cooperation in a human decision making experiment.

Pieter van den Berg, Siyuan Liu, Tom Wenseleers, Jianlei Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Pieter van den BergDepartment of Biology, Evolutionary Modelling Group, KU Leuven, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7886-9345
Siyuan LiuDepartment of Automation, College of Artifificial Intelligence, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7810-4393
Tom WenseleersDepartment of Biology, Lab of Socioecology and Social Evolution, KU Leuven, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1434-861X
Jianlei ZhangDepartment of Automation, College of Artifificial Intelligence, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China. jianleizhang@nankai.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-9932-9265

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cooperative behaviour can evolve through conditional strategies that direct cooperation towards interaction partners who have themselves been cooperative in the past. Such strategies are common in human cooperation, but they can be vulnerable to manipulation: individuals may try to exaggerate their past cooperation to elicit reciprocal contributions or improve their reputation for future gains. Little is known about the prevalence and the ramifications of misrepresentation in human cooperation, neither in general nor about its cultural facets (self-sacrifice for the group is valued differently across cultures). Here, we present a large-scale interactive decision making experiment (N = 870), performed in China and the USA, in which individuals had repeated cooperative interactions in groups. Our results show that (1) most individuals from both cultures overstate their contributions to the group if given the opportunity, (2) misrepresentation of cooperation is detrimental to cooperation in future interactions, and (3) the possibility to build up a personal reputation amplifies the effects of misrepresentation on cooperation in China, but not in the USA. Our results suggest that misrepresentation of cooperation is likely to be an important factor in (the evolution of) human social behaviour, with, depending on culture, diverging impacts on cooperation outcomes.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorSocial BehaviorChinaDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

PMID35853937
PMCPMC9296641

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.