Search

Indirect reciprocity is often claimed as one of the key mechanisms of human cooperation. It works only if there is a reputational score keeping and each individual can inform with high probability which other individuals were good or bad in the previous round. Gossip is often proposed as a mechanism that can maintain such coherence of reputations in the face of errors of transmission. Random errors, however, are not the only source of uncertainty in such situations. The possibility of deceptive communication, where the signallers aim to misinform the receiver cannot be excluded. While there is plenty of evidence for deceptive communication in humans the possibility of deception is not yet incorporated into models of indirect reciprocity. Here we show that when deceptive strategies are allowed in the population it will cause the collapse of the coherence of reputations and thus in turn it results the collapse of cooperation. This collapse is independent of the norms and the cost and benefit values. It is due to the fact that there is no selection for honest communication in the framework of indirect reciprocity. It follows that indirect reciprocity can be only proposed plausibly as a mechanism of human cooperation if additional mechanisms are specified in the model that maintains honesty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The honesty of communication in competitive situations has long been debated. We investigated the coexistence of a diverse set of strategies in a simple model of aggressive communication by means of individual-based computer simulations. The game is an extended Hawk–Dove game in which there are two types of individual, weak and strong, and in which individual can communicate by means of cost-free signals before deciding whether to attack. The available strategies can be classified into three categories: honest, cheaters and those that ignore the signalling system. We found a diverse set of equilibria, most of them consisting of a mixture of honest and cheating individuals. We found that when starting populations consist of all strategies (1) the honest equilibrium can evolve, (2) communication is almost always present when signals are informative, and (3) strategies that ignore signalling are generally rare. Honest individuals need not be the majority in these populations yet communication will be present and stable in the long run. In contrast, the pure honest equilibrium is unlikely to evolve when the starting populations consist of strategies that ignore signals. Strategies that ignore signals are more frequent in these types of run however, signalling strategies are still present in the most frequently evolved equilibria. Even in this simple system two different kinds of use of signals can evolve: the first when signals refer to resource-holding potential and a second where signals are used to create a payoff-irrelevant asymmetry. In general, regardless of the starting conditions, a low resource value favours weak individuals, both honest and cheaters, and cowards, medium values favour strong individuals that use and listen to signals, and a high resource value favours strong individuals that ignore the signalling system and attack under all conditions. Although it is possible to find parameter combinations with a negative value of information, the value of information is positive in the overwhelming majority of equilibria. Thus one can conclude that for the majority of parameter combinations an equilibrium evolved that might not be honest, not even on average, but communication is present and signals are worth listening to. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The prisoner''s dilemma (PD) and the snowdrift (SD) games are paradigmatic tools to investigate the origin of cooperation. Whereas spatial structure (e.g. nonrandom spatial distribution of strategies) present in the spatially explicit models facilitates the emergence of cooperation in the PD game, recent investigations have suggested that spatial structure can be unfavourable for cooperation in the SD game. The frequency of cooperators in a spatially explicit SD game can be lower than it would be in an infinitely large well-mixed population. However, the source of this effect cannot be identified with certainty as spatially explicit games differ from well-mixed games in two aspects: (i) they introduce spatial correlations, (ii) and limited neighbourhood. Here we extend earlier investigations to identify the source of this effect, and thus accordingly we study a spatially explicit version of the PD and SD games with varying degrees of dispersal and neighbourhood size. It was found that dispersal favours selfish individuals in both games. We calculated the frequency of cooperators at strong dispersal limit, which in concordance with the numerical results shows that it is the short range of interactions (i.e. limited neighbourhood) and not spatial correlations that decreases the frequency of cooperators in spatially explicit models of populations. Our results demonstrate that spatial correlations are always beneficial to cooperators in both the PD and SD games. We explain the opposite effect of dispersal and neighbourhood structure, and discuss the relevance of distinguishing the two effects in general. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

An abstract of the article "http://Mcule.com: a public web service for drug discovery," by Robert Kiss, Mark Sandor, and Ferenc A. Szalai is presented.