Is the Enemy's Friend an Enemy Too?:

DOI Web Site

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 敵の味方は敵?
  • 敵の味方は敵?--間接互恵性における二次情報の効果に対する理論的・実証的検討
  • テキ ノ ミカタ ワ テキ カンセツ ゴケイセイ ニ オケル 2ジ ジョウホウ ノ コウカ ニ タイスル リロンテキ ジッショウテキ ケントウ
  • ―間接互恵性における二次情報の効果に対する理論的・実証的検討―
  • Theoretical and Empirical Approach toward the Effect of Second-Order Information on Indirect Reciprocity

Search this article

Description

Although altruism based on direct reciprocity has been theoretically and empirically illustrated in various disciplines, the occurrence of altruism without direct reciprocity has been a puzzle until the recent theoretical development. After critically examining the previous studies, Mashima and Takahashi (2005) showed that neither Image Scoring (Nowak and Sigmund, 1998a, b) nor Standing (Leimar and Hammerstein, 2001; Panchanathan and Boyd, 2003) is the solution. It is SDISC that is the solution. However, the current study points out one limitation that all of these studies used the random matching environment, and argues that the selective-play environment (Takahashi, 2000; Yamagishi and Hayashi, 1996) should be used. In the theoretical part, this paper reports the results of a new series of simulation using the selective-play environment, which showed that not only SDISC but also “Extra Standing” (i.e., to give to a recipient who gave to a “good” individual or who did not give to a “bad” individual) can make indirect reciprocity possible. In the empirical part, this paper reports the results of a vignette study that examines people's strategies - what type of person people regard as “good” or “bad” in the indirect reciprocity setting. Results showed that respondents evaluated the target 1) who gave to a good recipient as “good,” 2) who gave to a bad recipient as “bad,” and 3) who did not give to a good recipient as “bad.” This is consistent with the theoretical conclusion.

Journal

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top