4.2 Article

Cooperation in an asymmetric volunteer's dilemma game with relatedness

Journal

CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN
Volume 57, Issue 16, Pages 1972-1981

Publisher

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11434-012-5178-z

Keywords

asymmetric interaction; cooperation; volunteer's dilemma; relatedness; public goods; kin selection; inclusive fitness

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170408, 71161020, 10961027]
  2. University of Yunnan Province
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province [2009CD104]
  4. West Light Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences
  5. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KSCX2-EW-Q-9]
  6. State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution

Ask authors/readers for more resources

What motivates some members of a social group to voluntarily incur costs in order to provide for the common good? This question lies at the heart of theoretical and empirical studies of cooperative behavior. This is also the question that underlies the classic volunteer's dilemma model, which has been previously explored in scenarios where group members are related or interact asymmetrically. Here we present a model that combines asymmetry and relatedness, showing that the probability of volunteerism in such systems depends closely on both the degree of asymmetry and level of relatedness between interacting individuals. As has been shown in previous volunteer's dilemma models, the payoff ratio and overall group size also influence the probability of volunteerism. The probability of volunteerism decreases with increasing group size or decreasing cost-to-benefit ratio of the co-players; in the presence of asymmetrical interactions, subordinate players were more likely to offer public goods than the dominant player. More asymmetrical interactions decrease the probability of volunteerism of the dominant player; overall volunteerism increases with increasing relatedness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available