↓ Skip to main content

Cooperating with the future

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
278 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
661 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cooperating with the future
Published in
Nature, June 2014
DOI 10.1038/nature13530
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver P. Hauser, David G. Rand, Alexander Peysakhovich, Martin A. Nowak

Abstract

Overexploitation of renewable resources today has a high cost on the welfare of future generations. Unlike in other public goods games, however, future generations cannot reciprocate actions made today. What mechanisms can maintain cooperation with the future? To answer this question, we devise a new experimental paradigm, the 'Intergenerational Goods Game'. A line-up of successive groups (generations) can each either extract a resource to exhaustion or leave something for the next group. Exhausting the resource maximizes the payoff for the present generation, but leaves all future generations empty-handed. Here we show that the resource is almost always destroyed if extraction decisions are made individually. This failure to cooperate with the future is driven primarily by a minority of individuals who extract far more than what is sustainable. In contrast, when extractions are democratically decided by vote, the resource is consistently sustained. Voting is effective for two reasons. First, it allows a majority of cooperators to restrain defectors. Second, it reassures conditional cooperators that their efforts are not futile. Voting, however, only promotes sustainability if it is binding for all involved. Our results have implications for policy interventions designed to sustain intergenerational public goods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 260 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 661 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 2%
Germany 7 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Portugal 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
France 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Other 9 1%
Unknown 609 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 183 28%
Researcher 116 18%
Student > Master 76 11%
Student > Bachelor 46 7%
Professor 37 6%
Other 125 19%
Unknown 78 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 127 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 96 15%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 60 9%
Social Sciences 57 9%
Environmental Science 38 6%
Other 170 26%
Unknown 113 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 477. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2023.
All research outputs
#56,310
of 25,489,496 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#4,528
of 98,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#376
of 242,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#32
of 993 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,489,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 98,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 102.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 993 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.