Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775540›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Tolerant integrated reciprocity sustains cooperation in a noisy environment.

Hitoshi Yamamoto, Isamu Okada, Takahisa Suzuki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Hitoshi YamamotoDepartment of Business Administration, Rissho University, Tokyo, 141-8602, Japan. hitoshi@ris.ac.jp.
Isamu OkadaDepartment of Business Administration, Soka University, Tokyo, 192-8577, Japan.
Takahisa SuzukiCollege of Policy Studies, Tsuda University, Tokyo, 151-0051, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 21KK0027Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 23K25160
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human cooperation relies on both direct and indirect reciprocity. While these mechanisms are often treated as separate, real-world decision-making frequently involves integrating the two. However, the existing literature has paid limited attention to the contextual factors and mechanisms supporting the coexistence of direct and indirect reciprocity. This study proposes and analyses a model of integrated reciprocity that combines personal experiences with reputational information. Using agent-based simulations, we systematically and comprehensively evaluate social norms and demonstrate that tolerant integrated reciprocity, which incorporates a partner's past behaviour and reputation, can sustain cooperation more robustly than strategies based solely on direct or indirect reciprocity. In particular, the combination of tolerant integrated reciprocity with the "Standing" norm maintains high cooperation levels even in noisy environments characterised by assessment and implementation errors. These findings suggest that tolerance and using multiple information sources provide an adaptive advantage in sustaining cooperation.

Indexed as

Agent-based simulationDirect reciprocityEvolution of cooperationIndirect reciprocitySocial norm

Identifiers

PMID40775540
PMCPMC12331934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.