The evolution of private reputations in information-abundant landscapes.

Reputations are critical to human societies, as individuals are treated differently based on their social standing1,2. For instance, those who garner a good reputation by helping others are more likely to be rewarded by third parties3-5. Achieving widespread cooperation in this way requires that reputations accurately reflect behaviour6 and that individuals agree about each other's standings7. With few exceptions8-10, theoretical work has assumed that information is limited, which hinders consensus7,11 unless there are mechanisms to enforce agreement, such as empathy12, gossip13-15 or public institutions16. Such mechanisms face challenges in a world where empathy, effective communication and institutional trust are compromised17-19. However, information about others is now abundant and readily available, particularly through social media. Here we demonstrate that assigning private reputations by aggregating several observations of an individual can accurately capture behaviour, foster emergent agreement without enforcement mechanisms and maintain cooperation, provided individuals exhibit some tolerance for bad actions. This finding holds for both first- and second-order norms of judgement and is robust even when norms vary within a population. When the aggregation rule itself can evolve, selection indeed favours the use of several observations and tolerant judgements. Nonetheless, even when information is freely accessible, individuals do not typically evolve to use all of it. This method of assessing reputations-'look twice, forgive once', in a nutshell-is simple enough to have arisen early in human culture and powerful enough to persist as a fundamental component of social heuristics.

A mechanistic model of gossip, reputations, and cooperation.

Social reputations facilitate cooperation: those who help others gain a good reputation, making them more likely to receive help themselves. But when people hold private views of one another, this cycle of indirect reciprocity breaks down, as disagreements lead to the perception of unjustified behavior that ultimately undermines cooperation. Theoretical studies often assume population-wide agreement about reputations, invoking rapid gossip as an endogenous mechanism for reaching consensus. However, the theory of indirect reciprocity lacks a mechanistic description of how gossip actually generates consensus. Here, we develop a mechanistic model of gossip-based indirect reciprocity that incorporates two alternative forms of gossip: exchanging information with randomly selected peers or consulting a single gossip source. We show that these two forms of gossip are mathematically equivalent under an appropriate transformation of parameters. We derive an analytical expression for the minimum amount of gossip required to reach sufficient consensus and stabilize cooperation. We analyze how the amount of gossip necessary for cooperation depends on the benefits and costs of cooperation, the assessment rule (social norm), and errors in reputation assessment, strategy execution, and gossip transmission. Finally, we show that biased gossip can either facilitate or hinder cooperation, depending on the direction and magnitude of the bias. Our results contribute to the growing literature on cooperation facilitated by communication, and they highlight the need to study strategic interactions coupled with the spread of social information.

When do stereotypes undermine indirect reciprocity?

Social reputations provide a powerful mechanism to stimulate human cooperation, but observing individual reputations can be cognitively costly. To ease this burden, people may rely on proxies such as stereotypes, or generalized reputations assigned to groups. Such stereotypes are less accurate than individual reputations, and so they could disrupt the positive feedback between altruistic behavior and social standing, undermining cooperation. How do stereotypes impact cooperation by indirect reciprocity? We develop a theoretical model of group-structured populations in which individuals are assigned either individual reputations based on their own actions or stereotyped reputations based on their groups' behavior. We find that using stereotypes can produce either more or less cooperation than using individual reputations, depending on how widely reputations are shared. Deleterious outcomes can arise when individuals adapt their propensity to stereotype. Stereotyping behavior can spread and can be difficult to displace, even when it compromises collective cooperation and even though it makes a population vulnerable to invasion by defectors. We discuss the implications of our results for the prevalence of stereotyping and for reputation-based cooperation in structured populations.

Ecological principles for the evolution of communication in collective systems.

Communication allows members of a collective to share information about their environment. Advanced collective systems, such as multicellular organisms and social insect colonies, vary in whether they use communication at all and, if they do, in what types of signals they use, but the origins of these differences are poorly understood. Here, we develop a theoretical framework to investigate the evolution and diversity of communication strategies under collective-level selection. We find that whether communication can evolve depends on a collective's external environment: communication only evolves in sufficiently stable environments, where the costs of sensing are high enough to disfavour independent sensing but not so high that the optimal strategy is to ignore the environment altogether. Moreover, we find that the evolution of diverse signalling strategies-including those relying on prolonged signalling (e.g. honeybee waggle dance), persistence of signals in the environment (e.g. ant trail pheromones) and brief but frequent communicative interactions (e.g. ant antennal contacts)-can be explained theoretically in terms of the interplay between the demands of the environment and internal constraints on the signal. Altogether, we provide a general framework for comparing communication strategies found in nature and uncover simple ecological principles that may contribute to their diversity.

Response thresholds alone cannot explain empirical patterns of division of labor in social insects.

The effects of heterogeneity in group composition remain a major hurdle to our understanding of collective behavior across disciplines. In social insects, division of labor (DOL) is an emergent, colony-level trait thought to depend on colony composition. Theoretically, behavioral response threshold models have most commonly been employed to investigate the impact of heterogeneity on DOL. However, empirical studies that systematically test their predictions are lacking because they require control over colony composition and the ability to monitor individual behavior in groups, both of which are challenging. Here, we employ automated behavioral tracking in 120 colonies of the clonal raider ant with unparalleled control over genetic, morphological, and demographic composition. We find that each of these sources of variation in colony composition generates a distinct pattern of behavioral organization, ranging from the amplification to the dampening of inherent behavioral differences in heterogeneous colonies. Furthermore, larvae modulate interactions between adults, exacerbating the apparent complexity. Models based on threshold variation alone only partially recapitulate these empirical patterns. However, by incorporating the potential for variability in task efficiency among adults and task demand among larvae, we account for all the observed phenomena. Our findings highlight the significance of previously overlooked parameters pertaining to both larvae and workers, allow the formulation of theoretical predictions for increasing colony complexity, and suggest new avenues of empirical study.

Emergence of hierarchy in networked endorsement dynamics.

Many social and biological systems are characterized by enduring hierarchies, including those organized around prestige in academia, dominance in animal groups, and desirability in online dating. Despite their ubiquity, the general mechanisms that explain the creation and endurance of such hierarchies are not well understood. We introduce a generative model for the dynamics of hierarchies using time-varying networks, in which new links are formed based on the preferences of nodes in the current network and old links are forgotten over time. The model produces a range of hierarchical structures, ranging from egalitarianism to bistable hierarchies, and we derive critical points that separate these regimes in the limit of long system memory. Importantly, our model supports statistical inference, allowing for a principled comparison of generative mechanisms using data. We apply the model to study hierarchical structures in empirical data on hiring patterns among mathematicians, dominance relations among parakeets, and friendships among members of a fraternity, observing several persistent patterns as well as interpretable differences in the generative mechanisms favored by each. Our work contributes to the growing literature on statistically grounded models of time-varying networks.

Interindividual cooperation mediated by partisanship complicates Madison's cure for "mischiefs of faction".

Political theorists have long argued that enlarging the political sphere to include a greater diversity of interests would cure the ills of factions in a pluralistic society. While the scope of politics has expanded dramatically over the past 75 y, polarization is markedly worse. Motivated by this paradox, we take a bottom-up approach to explore how partisan individual-level dynamics in a diverse (multidimensional) issue space can shape collective-level factionalization via an emergent dimensionality reduction. We extend a model of cultural evolution grounded in evolutionary game theory, in which individuals accumulate benefits through pairwise interactions and imitate (or learn) the strategies of successful others. The degree of partisanship determines the likelihood of learning from individuals of the opposite party. This approach captures the coupling between individual behavior, partisan-mediated opinion dynamics, and an interaction network that changes endogenously according to the evolving interests of individuals. We find that while expanding the diversity of interests can indeed improve both individual and collective outcomes, increasingly high partisan bias promotes a reduction in issue dimensionality via party-based assortment that leads to increasing polarization. When party bias becomes extreme, it also boosts interindividual cooperation, thereby further entrenching extreme polarization and creating a tug-of-war between individual cooperation and societal cohesion. These dangers of extreme partisanship are highest when individuals' interests and opinions are heavily shaped by peers and there is little independent exploration. Overall, our findings highlight the urgency to study polarization in a coupled, multilevel context.