JACIII Vol.18 No.4 pp. 624-631
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2014.p0624


Analysis of a Public Good Game Permitted New Entries: a Role of Defectors to Maintain Cooperation

Hitoshi Yamamoto*, Isamu Okada**, and Yuki Ogawa***

*Faculty of Business Administration, Rissho University, 3-2-16 Osaki, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 141-8602, Japan

**Faculty of Business Administration, Soka University, 1-236 Tangi, Hachioji City, Tokyo 192-8577, Japan

***Faculty of Geo-Environmental Science, Rissho University, 1700 Magechi, Kumagaya-shi, Saitama 360-0194, Japan

July 21, 2013
March 10, 2014
July 20, 2014
public goods game, evolution of cooperation, agent-based simulation, a social vaccine

We studied a public good game, in which metanorms work, permitted new entries. Although whoever wants to entry the game, either cooperators or noncooperators, can try to participate in the game, a manager of the game can control a policy to permit who are ok. By changing the level of control, we investigated what type of policies is effective to maintain cooperation. Especially, we compared a strict policy of population management that only cooperative participants are permitted to entry it, and a simple policy of population management that non-cooperative participants are permitted. According to our simulation of the model, it is revealed surprisingly that a level of cooperation of the game collapses when a strict policy was adopted. On the other hand, cooperation level maintains high robustly if a tolerant policy that some invaders who are perfect defectors are permitted. We conclude that an existence of a few amount of defection has an effect on cooperation of the society. We call this effect a social vaccine effect.

  1. [1] R. Axelrod, “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms,” American Political Science Review, Vol.80, No.4, pp. 1095-1111, 1986.
  2. [2] D. Heckathorn, “Collective Sanctions and Compliance Norms: A Formal Theory of Group-Mediated Social Control,” American Sociological Review, Vol.55, No.3, pp. 366-384, 1990.
  3. [3] C. Horne and A. Cutlip, “Sanctioning Costs and Norm Enforcement: An Experimental Test,” Rationality and Society, Vol.14, No.3, pp. 285-307, 2002.
  4. [4] T. Oda, “Evolutional Approach to the Emergence Problem of Order – application of metanorms game –,” Sociological Theory and Methods, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 81-99, 1990.
  5. [5] J. Galan and L. Izquierdo, “Appearances Can Be Deceiving: Lessons Learned Re-Implementing Axelrod’s ‘Evolutionary Approach to Norms’,” J. of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Vol.8, No.3,, 2005.
  6. [6] A. Lotem, M. Fishman, and L. Stone, “Evolution of cooperation between individuals,” Nature, Vol.400, pp. 226-227, 1999.
  7. [7] H. Yamamoto and I. Okada, “Vulnerability and Evolution of Cooperation in the Metanorms Game,” Proc. of the 3rd World Congress on Social Simulation (WCSS2010), 2010.
  8. [8] O. Dincer, “Ethnic and religious diversity and corruption,” Economics Letters, Vol.99, No.1, pp. 98-102, 2008.
  9. [9] J. Galan,M. Latek,M. Tsvetovat, and S. Rizi, “Axelrod’s Metanorm Games on Complex Networks,” Proc. of Agent 2007 Conf., pp. 271-280, 2010.
  10. [10] M. Prietula and D. Conway, “The evolution of metanorms: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Vol.15, No.3, pp. 147-168, 2009.
  11. [11] D. Newth, “Altruistic Punishment Social Structure and the Enforcement of Social Norms,” In R. Khosla et al. (Eds.): KES 2005, LNAI 3683, pp. 806-812, 2005.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Sep. 20, 2017