↓ Skip to main content

I Dare You to Punish Me—Vendettas in Games of Cooperation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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
I Dare You to Punish Me—Vendettas in Games of Cooperation
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0045093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrin Fehl, Ralf D. Sommerfeld, Dirk Semmann, Hans-Jürgen Krambeck, Manfred Milinski

Abstract

Everybody has heard of neighbours, who have been fighting over some minor topic for years. The fight goes back and forth, giving the neighbours a hard time. These kind of reciprocal punishments are known as vendettas and they are a cross-cultural phenomenon. In evolutionary biology, punishment is seen as a mechanism for maintaining cooperative behaviour. However, this notion of punishment excludes vendettas. Vendettas pose a special kind of evolutionary problem: they incur high costs on individuals, i.e. costs of punishing and costs of being punished, without any benefits. Theoretically speaking, punishment should be rare in dyadic relationships and vendettas would not evolve under natural selection. In contrast, punishment is assumed to be more efficient in group environments which then can pave the way for vendettas. Accordingly, we found that under the experimental conditions of a prisoner's dilemma game, human participants punished only rarely and vendettas are scarce. In contrast, we found that participants retaliated frequently in the group environment of a public goods game. They even engaged in cost-intense vendettas (i.e. continuous retaliation), especially when the first punishment was unjustified or ambiguous. Here, punishment was mainly targeted at defectors in the beginning, but provocations led to mushrooming of counter-punishments. Despite the counter-punishing behaviour, participants were able to enhance cooperation levels in the public goods game. Few participants even seemed to anticipate the outbreak of costly vendettas and delayed their punishment to the last possible moment. Overall, our results highlight the importance of different social environments while studying punishment as a cooperation-enhancing mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 29%
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 32%
Psychology 19 26%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 11%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 7 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#6,915,042
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#81,397
of 193,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,645
of 170,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,471
of 4,261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 170,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.