Want cooperation? Rewarding the helpful can be more effective than punishing wrongdoers, a new experiment in game theory suggests.
In the public goods game, players choose whether or not to contribute money to a common pot. The pot is multiplied and redistributed equally, regardless of who contributes and who doesn鈥檛. When people play a pure version of the , the temptation to freeload 鈥� reap the rewards without contributing anything 鈥� often leads to rapidly disintegrating cooperation.
Previous research found that cooperation is promoted by allowing players to punish freeloaders: cooperative players would pay a small cost that enables them to inflict a loss on the offender. This approach was more effective than reward, at least in games where players switch partners every round.
Advertisement
More carrot, less stick
and his colleagues at Harvard University modified the public goods game to reflect what they argue is a more natural scenario: people play with the same group for many rounds, establishing reputations with each other.
Players could choose to reward or punish others at a small cost to themselves. Rand found that rewarding or punishing were equally likely to lead to cooperation and higher earnings, but when players had the option to either punish or reward, but chose to reward, they received higher absolute payoffs. 鈥淚t becomes in one鈥檚 self-interest to help the group,鈥� says Rand.
鈥淚t鈥檚 sort of a 鈥榶ou scratch the group鈥檚 back and I鈥檒l scratch yours鈥�,鈥� he says.
Money for nothing
at the Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, cautions that Rand鈥檚 game does not accurately reflect real economies. He points out, for example, that under Rand鈥檚 rules the rewarder pays $4 and the rewardee 鈥渕agically鈥� receives $12. He calls this an unnatural scenario. 鈥淚f you take away the free lunch, it doesn鈥檛 work,鈥� says Bowles.
Rand points out that such disproportionate rewards often occur when we spend time, effort and money assisting people around us: helping a friend to move furniture, for instance, or recommending a colleague for promotion. Actions like these may have a smaller cost to us than the benefit they provide others. 鈥淭hese sorts of productive interactions are the building blocks of our society and should not be disregarded,鈥� he says.
Journal reference: , DOI:
