Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Apr 7;271(1540):669–674. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2636

Stability in negotiation games and the emergence of cooperation.

Peter D Taylor 1, Troy Day 1
PMCID: PMC1691654  PMID: 15209098

Abstract

Consider a two-player game in which each player contributes a costly resource to the common good of the pair. For such contests, the Nash equilibrium contribution, x*, is one for which neither player can increase its pay-off by unilaterally altering its contribution from x*. We study an elaboration of this game, which allows the players to exchange x-offers back and forth in a negotiation phase until they converge to a final pair of contributions, x1 and x2. A significant feature of such negotiation games, hitherto unrecognized, is the existence of a set of neutrally stable equilibrium points in negotiation phase space. To explore the long-term evolutionary outcome of such games, we simulate populations containing various mixtures of negotiation strategies and, contrary to previous results, we often find convergence to a contribution that is more cooperative than the Nash equilibrium. Mathematical analysis suggests why this might be happening, and provides a novel and robust explanation for cooperation, that negotiation can facilitate the evolution of cooperative behaviour.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (126.2 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Agrawal A. A. Phenotypic plasticity in the interactions and evolution of species. Science. 2001 Oct 12;294(5541):321–326. doi: 10.1126/science.1060701. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Axelrod R., Hamilton W. D. The evolution of cooperation. Science. 1981 Mar 27;211(4489):1390–1396. doi: 10.1126/science.7466396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dieckmann U., Law R. The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol. 1996;34(5-6):579–612. doi: 10.1007/BF02409751. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Lotem A., Fishman M. A., Stone L. Evolution of cooperation between individuals. Nature. 1999 Jul 15;400(6741):226–227. doi: 10.1038/22247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. McNamara J. M., Gasson C. E., Houston A. I. Incorporating rules for responding into evolutionary games. Nature. 1999 Sep 23;401(6751):368–371. doi: 10.1038/43869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Milinski Manfred, Semmann Dirk, Krambeck Hans-Jürgen. Reputation helps solve the 'tragedy of the commons'. Nature. 2002 Jan 24;415(6870):424–426. doi: 10.1038/415424a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Nowak M. A., Sigmund K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature. 1998 Jun 11;393(6685):573–577. doi: 10.1038/31225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Riolo R. L., Cohen M. D., Axelrod R. Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity. Nature. 2001 Nov 22;414(6862):441–443. doi: 10.1038/35106555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wilson D. S. A theory of group selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1975 Jan;72(1):143–146. doi: 10.1073/pnas.72.1.143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES