Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:02:35.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clustered networks protect cooperation against catastrophic collapse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2018

GWEN SPENCER
GWEN SPENCER*
Affiliation:
Burton Hall, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA (e-mail: gspencer@smith.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Assuming a society of conditional cooperators (or moody conditional cooperators), this computational study proposes a new perspective on the structural advantage of social network clustering. Previous work focused on how clustered structure might encourage initial outbreaks of cooperation or defend against invasion by a few defectors. Instead, we explore the ability of a societal structure to retain cooperative norms in the face of widespread disturbances. Such disturbances may abstractly describe hardships like famine and economic recession, or the random spatial placement of a substantial numbers of pure defectors (or round-1 defectors) among a spatially structured population of players in a laboratory game, etc.

As links in tightly clustered societies are reallocated to distant contacts, we observe that a society becomes increasingly susceptible to catastrophic cascades of defection: mutually-beneficial cooperative norms can be destroyed completely by modest shocks of defection. In contrast, networks with higher clustering coefficients can withstand larger shocks of defection before being forced to catastrophically low levels of cooperation. We observe a remarkably linear protective effect of clustering coefficient that becomes active above a critical level of clustering. Notably, both the critical level and the slope of this dependence is higher for decision-rule parameterizations that correspond to higher costs of cooperation. Our modeling framework provides a simple way to reinterpret the counter-intuitive and widely cited human experiments of Suri and Watts (2011) while also affirming the classical intuition that network clustering and higher levels of cooperation should be positively associated.

Keywords

cooperationclusteringthreshold modelssocial influencecontagionrepeated game-play
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 281 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396.Google Scholar
Cason, T. N., Savikhin, A. C., & Sheremeta, R. M. (2012). Behavioral spillovers in coordination games. European Economic Review, 56 (2), 233–245.Google Scholar
Centola, D., & Macy, M. (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (3), 702–734.Google Scholar
Fortunato, S. (2010). Community detection in graphs. Physics Reports, 486 (3–5), 75–174.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(12), 5334–5338.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. A., & Vega-Redondo, F. (2015). Social cohesion and the evolution of altruism. Games and Economic Behavior, 92 (July), 74–105.Google Scholar
Glance, N. S., & Huberman, B. A. (1993). The outbreak of cooperation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 17 (4), 281–302.Google Scholar
Gracia-Lázaro, C., Ferrer, A., Ruiz, G., Tarancón, A., Cuesta, J. A., Sánchez, A., & Moreno, Y. (2012). Heterogeneous networks do not promote cooperation when humans play a Prisoner's Dilemma. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(32), 12922–12926.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. The American Journal of Sociology, 83 (6), 1420–1443.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Traulsen, A., Cuesta, J. A., . . . Sánchez, A. (2014). A comparative analysis of spatial Prisoner's Dilemma experiments: Conditional cooperation and payoff irrelevance. Scientific Reports, 4 (April), 4615.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Fosco, C., Araujo, L., Cuesta, J. A., & Sánchez, A. (2010). Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial Prisoner's Dilemma. PLoS One, 5 (11), 1–9.Google Scholar
Horita, Y., Takezawa, M., Inukai, K., Kita, T., & Masuda, N. (2017). Reinforcement learning accounts for moody conditional cooperation behavior: Experimental results. Scientific Reports, 7, 39275. doi:10.1038/srep39275.Google Scholar
Knez, M., & Camerer, C. (2000). Increasing cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemmas by establishing a precedent of efficiency in coordination games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82 (2), 194–216.Google Scholar
Leskovec, J., Lang, K. J., & Mahoney, M. (2010). Empirical comparison of algorithms for network community detection. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '10). New York, NY, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314 (5805), 1560–1563.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Bonhoeffer, S., & May, R. M. (1994). Spatial games and the maintenance of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 91(11), 4877–4881.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Nowak, M. A., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2014). Static network structure can stabilize human cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(48), 17093–17098.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Fudenberg, D., & Dreber, A. (2015). It's the thought that counts: The role of intentions in noisy repeated games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 116, 481–499.Google Scholar
Roca, C. P., Cuesta, J. A., & Sánchez, A. (2009). Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics. Physics of Life Reviews, 6 (4), 208–249.Google Scholar
Santos, F., & Pacheco, J. (2005). Scale-free networks provide a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Physical Review Letters, 95, 098104. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.098104Google Scholar
Seierstad, C., & Opsahl, T. (2011). For the few not the many? The effects of affirmative action on presence, prominence, and social capital of women directors in norway. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27 (1), 44–54.Google Scholar
Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS One, 6 (3), e16836.Google Scholar
Traulsen, A., Semmann, D., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H., & Milinski, M. (2010). Human strategy updating in evolutionary games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(7), 2962–2966.Google Scholar
van Huyck, J., Battalio, R., & Beil, R. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80 (1), 234–248.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks. Nature, 393 (6684), 409–410.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (1999). Small Worlds: The Dynamics of Networks Between Order and Randomness. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, R. A. (2006). Managing growth to achieve efficient coordination in large groups. American Economic Review, 96 (1), 114–126.Google Scholar