Display options
Share it on

PLoS One. 2014 Dec 04;9(12):e114464. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114464. eCollection 2014.

Relational diversity promotes cooperation in prisoner's dilemma games.

PloS one

Bo Xu, Jianwei Wang, Ruipu Deng, Miao Li

Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Shenyang, China.
  2. Three Gorges Finance Company Limited, Beijing, China.
  3. Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.

PMID: 25474354 PMCID: PMC4256426 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114464

Abstract

Relational diversity can be characterized by heterogeneous distributions of tie strengths in social networks and this diversity is present not only among humans, but throughout the animal world. We account for this observation by analyzing two network datasets from Facebook. We measure the strength of a tie by calculating the extent of overlap of friends between the two individuals. Based on the previous findings in human experiments, we argue that it is very unlikely that players will allocate their investments equally to their neighbors. There is a tendency that players prefer to donate more to their intimate friends. We find that if players preferentially allocate their investments to their good friends, cooperation will be promoted in PDG. We proved that the facilitation of the cooperative strategy relies mostly on the cooperative allies between best friends, resulting in the formation of cooperative clusters which are able to prevail against the defectors even when there is a large cost to cooperate. Moreover, we discover that the effect of relational diversity cannot be analyzed by adopting classical complex networks models, because neither of the artificial networks is able to produce networks with diverse distributions of tie strengths. It is of vital importance to introduce real social networks to study the influence of diverse relations especially when it comes to humans. This research proposes a brand new perspective to understand the influence of social relations on the emergence of cooperation in evolutionary prisoner's dilemma games.

References

  1. Nature. 2006 May 25;441(7092):502-5 - PubMed
  2. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5496 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e66560 - PubMed
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 May 24;91(11):4877-81 - PubMed
  5. Science. 1999 Oct 15;286(5439):509-12 - PubMed
  6. Sci Rep. 2014;4:4534 - PubMed
  7. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2014 Feb;89(2):022804 - PubMed
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 1;104(18):7332-6 - PubMed
  9. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390-6 - PubMed
  10. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2008 Jan;77(1 Pt 1):011904 - PubMed
  11. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e97822 - PubMed
  12. Phys Rev Lett. 2005 Aug 26;95(9):098104 - PubMed
  13. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2007 Apr;75(4 Pt 2):045101 - PubMed
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Apr 23;110(17):6913-8 - PubMed
  15. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Jul 23;8:248 - PubMed
  16. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Feb 28;103(9):3490-4 - PubMed
  17. Nature. 2008 Jul 10;454(7201):213-6 - PubMed
  18. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2010 Jul;82(1 Pt 2):016105 - PubMed
  19. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e18338 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types