Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Reciprocity serves as an explanation for why participants cooperate in dyads, but fails to account for larger groups. Evolutionary theories of indirect reciprocity and costly signaling may be useful to explain large-scale cooperation. When people can selectively choose partners to play games with, it pays to develop a cooperative reputation ...
Genovese was stabbed to death outside her apartment building in Queens, New York, in 1964. According to a highly influential New York Times account, dozens of people witnessed the assault but did not get involved because they thought others would contact the police anyway and did not want to incur the personal cost of getting involved. [2]
In its applied sense, "[a] collaboration is a purposeful relationship in which all parties strategically choose to cooperate in order to accomplish a shared outcome". [4] Trade between nations is a form of collaboration between two societies which produce and exchange different portfolios of goods.
Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution, Princeton University Press, 2011, ISBN 0-691-15125-3 (Reviewed in The Montreal Review) Tom R. Tyler, "Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations", Princeton University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1-4008-3666-6; Michael Tomasello, (2009), Why We ...
A payoff maximizing third party would choose not to punish, and a similarly rational allocator would choose to keep the entire sum for himself. However, experimental results show that a majority of third parties punish allocations less than 50% [ 12 ] In the prisoner's dilemma with third party punishment, two of the participants play a prisoner ...
A cooperative game is given by specifying a value for every coalition. Formally, the coalitional game consists of a finite set of players , called the grand coalition, and a characteristic function: [4] from the set of all possible coalitions of players to a set of payments that satisfies () =.
In game theory, a focal point (or Schelling point) is a solution that people tend to choose by default in the absence of communication in order to avoid coordination failure. [1] The concept was introduced by the American economist Thomas Schelling in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960). [ 2 ]
The observer could then choose to spend from his endowment to punish the defectors who chose to put self-interest ahead of cooperation. From previous theories, [9] [10] it can be concluded that subjects are willing to cooperate if the probability that others will also do so is sufficiently large. Once again, if self-interest was the decision ...