ArticleScientific reports2025
Ecology and the evolution of cooperation by partner choice and reciprocity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficiency Recalibrates Social-Emotional Trade-Offs Behind Partner Choice in Direct Reciprocity through Intention-Specific Neural Bases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Organisms help each other to get resources, protection from enemies, and other goods, but not as much as would be best for their population. Partner choice, direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity foster cooperation and help to align individual interests with the social good. However, we still do not know what ecological variables affect their success and interaction. I simulated the evolution of partner choice, direct reciprocity and indirect reciprocity, and the production of a good that partners donate to each other. I show that, with few exceptions, partner choice evolves whenever there is an initial social dilemma, under a wider range of conditions than direct reciprocity. Direct reciprocity is deleterious when the shared good is highly essential or very influential. Both partner choice and direct reciprocity compel individuals to produce close to the socially optimal quantity of the shared good. Direct reciprocity does so even when it is deleterious and reciprocators are rare. Indirect reciprocity succeeds when individuals can also choose partners, and in most cases contributes less than partner choice or direct reciprocity to alleviating social dilemmas. Partner choice may have allowed humans to use a set of collectively produced goods including clothing, fire, hunting tools, housing, and shared knowledge, to the point that they became essential.
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.