Abstract
Why are people inclined to build friendships and maintain durable, nonreproductive relationships? Previous computational modeling work on the evolution of commitment in repeated exchange showed that being largely unconditionally cooperative in committed relationships is more viable than conditional cooperation based on fair reciprocity (e.g. Tit for Tat). But this work did not conduct a sufficiently strict test of the viability of commitment because it did not allow for the spontaneous emergence of “smart cheaters” who take advantage of the tolerance of commitment players. We extend previous studies with the possibility of randomly mutating strategies under evolutionary pressures, and give a much larger coverage of an infinite strategy space. Our results show the lack of evolutionary stable strategies in our dilemma setting. We find that emerging populations alternate between temporarily stable states that can be characterized as either cooperative or opportunistic. Using the simulated results as input to statistical analysis, we show that the viability of strategies increases with increasing levels of interpersonal commitment, and that the effect of interpersonal commitment on viability is larger than the effect of fairness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Robert Axelrod. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.
I Back and A Flache. The viability of cooperation based on interpersonal com-mitment. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(1), JAN 2006. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk./JASSS/ URL.
J Bendor and P Swistak. The evolution of norms. American Journal of Sociology, 106:1493–1545, Jun 2001.
K Binmore. Review of “R. Axelrod, the complexity of coopera-tion: Agent-based models of competition and collaboration; princeton: Up 1997”. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(1), 1998. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk./JASSS/l/l/reviewl.html URL.
G.E. Bolton and A. Ockenfels. Ere —a theory of equity, reciprocity and compe-tition. American Economic Review, 90(l):166–193, 2000.
V. Buskens and W. Raub. Embedded trust: Control and learning. Advances in Group Processes, 19:167–202, 2002.
R.M Dawes. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31:169–193, 1980.
Hde Vos and EP H Zeggelink. Reciprocal altruism in human social evolution: the viability of reciprocal altruism with a preference for ‘old-helping-partners’. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18:261–278, 1997.
Henk de Vos, Rita Smaniotto, and Donald A. Elsas. Reciprocal altruism under conditions of partner selection. Rationality and Society, 13(2): 139–183, 2001.
E. Fehr and S. Gächter. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415:137–140, 2002.
H. Gintis. Solving the puzzle of prosociality. Rationality and Society, 15(2): 155–187, 2003.
W. Güth and H. Kliemt. The indirect evolutionary approach. Rationality and Society, 10(3):377–399, 1998.
N. Hayashi and T. Yamagishi. Selective play: Choosing partners in an uncertain world. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2:276–289, 1998.
Dennis J. Johnson and Caryl E. Rusbult. Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relation-ships, ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), dec 1989.
JC Karremans, PA Van Lange, JW Ouwerkerk, and ES Kluwer. When forgiv-ing enhances psychological well-being: the role of interpersonal commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5):1011–1026, May 2003.
Peter Kollock. The emergence of exchange structures: An experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2):313–345, SEP 1994.
Edward J.Lawler. An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2):321–352, September 2001.
E. J. Lawler and J.K. Yoon. Commitment in exchange relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion. American Sociological Review, 61(l):89–108, FEB 1996.
CE Rusbult and JM Martz. Remaining in an abusive relationship — an in-vestment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6):558–571, Jun 1995.
R. Schüssler. Exit threats and cooperation under anonimity. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33:728–749, 1989.
Peter D.Taylor and Leo B. Jonker. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences, 40:145–156, 1978.
J Wieselquist, CE Rusbult, CR Agnew, CA Foster, and CR Agnew. Commit-ment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5):942–966, NOV 1999.
E.P.H. Zeggelink, Henk deVos, and Donald Elsas. Reciprocal altruism and group formation: The degree of segmentation of reciprocal altruists who prefer old-helping-partners. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 3(3), 2000. http://www.soc.surrey.ac.Uk/JASSS/3/3/l.html URL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Back, I., Flache, A. (2007). Why Do We Like To Stay with Our Friends? Modelling the Evolutionary Dynamics of Interpersonal Commitment. In: Takahashi, S., Sallach, D., Rouchier, J. (eds) Advancing Social Simulation: The First World Congress. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-73167-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-73167-2_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-73150-4
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-73167-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)