Paper detail

The expert game -- Cooperation in social communication

Large parts of professional human communication proceed in a request-reply fashion, whereby requests contain specifics of the information desired while replies can deliver the required information. However, time limitations often force individuals to prioritize some while neglecting others. This dilemma will inevitably force individuals into defecting against some communication partners to give attention to others. Furthermore, communication entirely breaks down when individuals act purely egoistically as replies would never be issued and quest for desired information would always be prioritized. Here we present an experiment, termed "The expert game", where a number of individuals communicate with one-another through an electronic messaging system. By imposing a strict limit on the number of sent messages, individuals were required to decide between requesting information that is beneficial for themselves or helping others by replying to their requests. In the experiment, individuals were assigned the task to find the expert on a specific topic and receive a reply from that expert. Tasks and expertise of each player were periodically re-assigned to randomize the required interactions. Resisting this randomization, a non-random network of cooperative communication between individuals formed. We use a simple Bayesian inference algorithm to model each player's trust in the cooperativity of others with good experimental agreement. Our results suggest that human communication in groups of individuals is strategic and favors cooperation with trusted parties at the cost of defection against others. To establish and maintain trusted links a significant fraction of time-resources is allocated, even in situations where the information transmitted is negligible.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.