arXiv:1810.05516v2 [physics.soc-ph] 15 Oct 2018 t tlresae ihurltdohr swa ae hu- makes cooperation, what of psycholo is basis the Moreover, others ical cooper- [3–14]. unrelated to successful so with capacity societies scales man our large that at contended impor ate have so is many cooperation that Indeed, tant cooperation. is which of ied aims important most the research. amongst t scientific thus and contemporary is of people whole, self- other a best benefitting as their pro-socially, society from act deviate Understan to people part how interest good. and renounce greater why, to the when, and for ing together all interests individual act examples, our few to of efforts a best name our to require just conflicts, misinformat of armed r spread persistent natural the of inequality, depletion staggering the challenge sources, change, greatest Climate the sim evolution. of but our some of 2], facing [1, also before are ever we taneously, than healthier and safer, richer, to 1] te om fmrlbhvo aent u goal Our not. have behavior moral of forms coo other study [14], to of ation prolifically methods used particula while been have a And physics re- just statistical [18]. empirical is behavior moral recent cooperate of to societies, manifestation that our however, of shows, wellbeing search the for succe evolutionary called and im- our being for the cooperation deserve from of importance away may mense nothing we Taking that eve [17]. point on ‘SuperCooperators’ the and cooperating, to still scales, are larger we Nevertheless, t gone. cooperation are into th ancestors clear our is pressured it that [16], challenges survival for struggles evolutionary our [15]. apes great by not but i intentions’ humans and makes collaborati goals in joint others with with activities co-operative engage to motivation and ability † ∗ lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic r-oilbhvo a oei ayfrs h otstud- most the forms, many in come can behavior Pro-social arguably are we that in special and unique is now time Our lhuhhmncoeaini eivdt rgnt from originate to believed is cooperation human Although 2 aut fNtrlSine n ahmtc,Uiest of University Mathematics, and Sciences Natural of Faculty ehd fsaitclpyiscudla onwisgt an insights new among to are lead These could physics solution? statistical their of d methods to contribute they clash and as principles advance evolve moral in different societies when our happens did What res Why emerge? future moral for sociality. of direction human far-reaching forms a other about is studying this towards that path argue the We up a open mora well here namely as behavior, efficiency, we equity, of honesty, class property, general th others’ more shows ing a research of kind empirical one recent only However, games. dilemma uniquely ehd fsaitclpyishv rvnvlal o stu for valuable proven have physics statistical of Methods 1 rn hlegsi oilpyis npruto oa beha moral of pursuit In physics: social in challenges Grand eateto cnmc,MdlsxUiest,TeBurrou The University, Middlesex Economics, of Department ua,a ti osse ychildren, by possessed is it as human, Introduction 3 hrdintentionality shared opeiySineHbVen,Jsftatrtae3,A- Josefst¨adterstraße 39, Vienna, Hub Science Complexity aei Capraro Valerio hti,‘the is, that , what s tthe at oday per- ion, ve, ul- he 1, g- d- e- ss s r r - ∗ n ajˇ Perc Matjaˇz and ayohr.Isie yteeeprmna works, experimental these by Inspired others. many s fec oildlma n npriua ttehato the of heart the at particular in hear and problem. the cooperation at dilemma, is social which each interests, of conflic group a to and leads individual This between individual. defectio an games, while of co- payoff group, these defect: the the maximizes In to of or payoff cooperate the [21]. maximizes to game operation whether decide goods to public have the players stag or the [19], [20], dilemma prisoner’s hunt the as such games, dilemma rdtoa rmwr fcoeaini oildilemmas. social in cooperation th beyond of behavior, framework researc moral traditional future and for physics possibilities between many interface the the outline to is here n ewr cec osuycoeain[7 8,a elas well as behavior. physics moral 38], of [37, statistical forms cooperation other of study to methods one science and which network and techniques in [9]. setting the simulations’ natural apply computer the can by present study networks mathemati- to on analyze Games easy to ‘are difficult but are cally’, graphs on ‘games [34–3 clu the defectors form These of invasion And can the cooperators from themselves [33]. setting, protect this and yes in is th that, answer promote is The structure intuition only spatial cooperation? this interact of Can and evolution graph neighbors. a tha their of assuming with vertices by the wit situation occupy this cooperate, individuals formalize alone can let One interact, and strangers. rarely interact we to an likely and friends, members, more coworkers, family are of network We our within vacuum. cooperate a in happen d humans not among interactions Everyday reciprocity. network others. many as coopera well as [30], 32], translucency 31, [29], [12, equilibria heuristics interna social the of [25–28], ind tion preferences [23], social reciprocity [24], direct reciprocity [22], for studie selection and mechanisms kin identified Several been including have cooperation play. of at evolution the are mechanisms other less individuals self-interested among evolve cannot behavior ac htcnhl sase udmna questions fundamental answer us help can that earch aio,Krˇk et 6,S-00Mrbr Slovenia Maribor, SI-2000 160, Koroˇska cesta Maribor, otiuetwrsfidn answers. finding towards contribute d ic oprtn sntidvdal pia,cooperativ optimal, individually not is cooperating Since social use scientists behavior, cooperative study To n elsi ehns o h vlto fcoeainis cooperation of evolution the for mechanism realistic One a epeittebekoto oa conflicts moral of out break the predict we Can ? ttems motn usin fortm,and time, our of questions important most the st eair hc nldsrcpoiy respect- reciprocity, includes which behavior, l tcoeaiebhvo nsca iemsis dilemmas social in behavior cooperative at d htmrlpicpe r oelkl to likely more are principles moral What id? yn h vlto fcoeaini social in cooperation of evolution the dying eairwt ehd fsaitclphysics. statistical of methods with behavior h,Lno W B,U.K. 4BT, NW4 London ghs, ,3, 2, 00Ven,Austria Vienna, 1080 † Cooperation vior sters un- , irect liza- at h tive 6]. d, h d o n e e e t t t 2

Statistical physics of human cooperation the stable solution of the whole system, can only be deter- mined by letting all the subsystem solutions compete against Methods of statistical physics have come a long way in each other. improving our understanding of the emergence of coopera- By means of this approach, several important insights have tion and the phase transitions leading to other counterintuitive been obtained. By peer-based strategies, for example, we note evolutionary outcomes. Research has revealed that such out- the importance of indirect territorial competition in peer pun- comes depend on the structure of the social network, the type ishment [68], the spontaneous emergence of cyclic dominance and strength of interactions, and on the complexity and num- in rewarding [59], and an exotic first-order phase transition ber of competing strategies [39–49]. Aspects particularly rel- observed with correlated strategies [69]. By institutionalized evant to human cooperation have also been studied in much strategies, we have observed the fascinating spatiotemporal detail [14]. The workhorse behind this research has been the complexity that is due to pool punishment [53], while in the spatial public goods game [50, 51], with extensions towards realm of self-organization of incentives for cooperation, we different forms of punishment [52–58], rewarding [59–62], have demonstrated the elevated effectiveness of adaptive pun- and tolerance [63], to name just some examples. The Monte ishment [54], the possibility of probabilistic sharing to solve Carlo method is thereby typically used [64], which ensures the problem of costly punishment [56], and the many evolu- that the research is aligned with statistical physics methodol- tionary advantages of adaptive rewarding [61]. With antisocial ogy. This in turn enables a comparison of simulation results strategies, we have shown the restoration of the effectiveness with generalized mean-field approximations [65–67], and a of prosocial punishment when accounting for second-order proper determination of phase transitions between different free-riding on antisocial punishment [58], and the rather sur- stable strategy configurations [45]. Ultimately, the goal is to prising lack of adverse effects with antisocial rewarding [62]. identify and understand pattern formation, the spatiotemporal While this is just a short snippet of statistical physics re- dynamics of solutions, and the principles of self-organization search concerning human cooperation, it hopefully showcases that may lead to socially favorable evolutionary outcomes. successfully the potency of the approach for studying complex As an example of an evolutionary game that yields an im- mathematical models that describe human behavior, thus rec- pressively intricate phase diagram, we mention an 8-strategy ommending itself also for relevantly studying other types of public goods game with diverse tolerance levels. The phase moral behavior to which we attend to in what follows. diagram is presented in Fig. 1 of [63], based on which several observations can be made. In the first place, we can observe that higher tolerance levels are supported by higher multipli- Moral behavior cation factors in the publicgoods game, and vice versa. This is in agreement with experience, in that overly tolerant strategies Empirical research has indeed shown that cooperation in cannot survive in the presence of other less tolerant strategies. social dilemmas is only one facet of a more general class of From the viewpoint of the considered 8-strategy public goods behavior – moral behavior. When subjects are asked to re- game this is also not surprising, because players adopting the port what they think is the morally right thing to do in social most tolerant strategy act as loners only if everybody else in dilemmas, they typically answer: ‘to cooperate’ [18]. the group is a defector. And evidently, such naive tolerance Morality is universal across human societies. Virtually all can not compete with other less tolerant strategies that also societies adopt behavioral rules that are presented to the peo- compete in the game. Secondly, the phase diagram also re- ple as moral principles. But where do these rules come from? veals that if the cost of inspection is too high, or if the value A classical non-scientific explanation, still adopted by many of the multiplication factor is either very low or very high, societies and religious thinkers, is that they are emanated di- tolerance is not viable at all. Even if one tries out different rectly from God. However, in recent years, social scientists tolerance levels, the evolutionary pressure from other strate- have been developing a scientific theory of morality, accord- gies is simply too strong. ing to which morality evolved as a a mechanism ‘to promote While it is beyond the scope of this work to go further into and sustain cooperation’ [70]. As psychology-star Michael details, it should be noted that phase diagrams as the one pre- Tomasello put it: ‘human morality arose evolutionarily as a set sented in Fig. 1 of [63] provide an in-depth understanding of of skills and motives for cooperating with others’ [71]. Sim- the evolutionary dynamics and of the phase transitions that ilar positions have also been put forward in [72–77]. How- lead from one stable strategy configuration to the other. The ever, the word ‘cooperation’in these statements does not refer key for obtaining accurate locations of phase transition points only to cooperation in social dilemmas. How does this general and the correct phases is the application of the stability anal- form of cooperation translates into specific behaviors? ysis of competing subsystem solutions [64]. A subsystem A recent study exploring morality in 60 societies across the solution can be formed by any subset of all the competing world found that seven moral rules are universal: love your strategies, and on their own (if separated from other strate- family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to au- gies) these subsystems solutions are stable. If the subsystem thority, be fair, and respect others’ property. Although, what solution is formed by a single strategy this is trivially true, but is not universal is how they are ranked [77]. Of course, not all it can be likewise true if more than one strategy forms a sub- these rules are easy to study using simple games on networks, system solution. The dominant subsystem solution, and hence but some are. For example, ‘returning favors’ can be studied the phase that is ultimately depicted in the phase diagram as using a sequential prisoner’s dilemma, in which the players 3 do not choose their strategy simultaneously, but sequentially. are usually studied using simple distribution experiments, in Alternatively, it can be studied using the trust game [78]. In which people have to decide between two or more allocations the trust game, player 1 starts with a sum of money and has of money [18, 27, 28, 97, 98]. to decide how much of it, if any, to transfer to player 2. Any amount transferred gets multiplied by a factor larger than 1 and handedto player 2. Then player 2 has to decide how much of it to keep and how much of it to return to player 1. Discussion Similarly, ‘help your group’ can be studied using games with labeled players, in which agents come with a label rep- Methods of statistical physics and network science have resenting the group(s) they belong to [79]. ‘Fairness’ can be proven to be very valuable for successfully studying the evo- studied using the ultimatum game [80], as has already been lution of cooperation in social dilemma games. However, em- done along these lines [45, 81–90], or the dictator game [91]. pirical research shows that this kind of behavior is only one ‘Respect others’ property’ can be studied using games with form of a more general class of moral behavior. The later special frames, as, for example, the Dictator game in the Take includes love your family, help your group, return favors, be frame, for which it is known that taking is considered to be brave, defer to authority, be fair, respect others’ property, hon- more morally wrong than giving [92]. esty, equity, and efficiency, as well as many others. We have Beyond these seven rules, there are other forms of moral outlined a set of games and mathematical models that could behavior that are worth studying, as, for example, ‘honesty’. be used efficiently to study particular aspects of some of these A common game theoretic paradigm to study honest behav- forms of moral behavior. ior is the sender-receiver game [93]. In this game, player 1 Taken together, the application of statistical physics to is given a private information (for example, the outcome of a study the evolution of moral behavior has the potential to be- die) and is asked to communicate this piece of information to come a flourishing and vibrant avenue of future research. We player 2. Player 1 can either communicate the truthful piece believe so for two reasons. In the first place, it would allow of information, or can lie. The role of player 2 is to guess the us to understand why our societies evolved as they did and original piece of information. If player 2 guesses the origi- which moral principles are more likely to evolve. Secondly, nal piece of information, then players 1 and 2 are both paid since many social conflicts are ultimately conflicts between according to some option A. Conversely, if player 2 does not different moral positions [99–101], exploring the evolution of guess the original piece of information, then players 1 and 2 moral behavior could allow us to predict in advance the con- are both paid according to option B. Crucially, only player 1 sequences of a moral conflict, and suggest strategies to avoid knows the payoffs associated with options A and B. A variant it or, in case it is unavoidable, strategies to minimize its costs. of this game in which player 2 makes no choice has also been We hope that at least parts of our vision will be put to practice introducedand studied [94, 95], in order to avoid the confound in the near future. of sophisticated deception, that is, players who tell the truth because they believe that player 2 will not believe them [96]. Other important forms of moral behavior that ought to be investigated are ‘equity’, that is, a desire to minimize pay- Acknowledgments off differences among players; ‘efficiency’, that is, a desire to maximize the total welfare; and ‘maximin’, that is, a desire This work was supported by the Slovenian Research to maximize the worse off payoff. These types of behavior Agency (Grants J1-7009, J4-9302, J1-9112 and P5-0027).

[1] Pinker, S. The better angels of our nature: The decline of C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., violence in history and its causes. Penguin uk, (2011). Henrich, N., et al. Costly punishment across human societies. [2] Pinker, S. Enlightenment now: the case for reason, science, Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006). humanism, and progress. Penguin, (2018). [9] Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. [3] Ostrom, E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006). Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, 137–158 (2000). [10] Herrmann, B., Th¨oni, C., and G¨achter, S. Antisocial punish- [4] Fehr, E. and G¨achter, S. Altruistic punishment in humans. ment across societies. Science 319, 1362–1367 (2008). Nature 415, 137 (2002). [11] Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. A cooperative species: Human reci- [5] Milinski, M., Semmann, D., and Krambeck, H.-J. Reputation procity and its evolution. Princeton University Press, (2011). helps solve the ?tragedy of the commons? Nature 415, 424 [12] Capraro, V. A model of human cooperation in social dilem- (2002). mas. PLoS ONE 8, e72427 (2013). [6] Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., and Fehr, E. Explaining [13] Rand, D. G. and Nowak, M. A. Human cooperation. Trends altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior in Cognitive Sciences 17, 413–425 (2013). 24, 153–172 (2003). [14] Perc, M., Jordan, J. J., Rand, D. G., Wang, Z., Boccaletti, S., [7] Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. Social norms and human coop- and Szolnoki, A. Statistical physics of human cooperation. eration. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 185–190 (2004). Physics Reports 687, 1–51 (2017). [8] Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, [15] Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., and Moll, 4

H. In search of the uniquely human. Behavioral and Brain Physical Journal B 88, 124 (2015). Sciences 28, 721–727 (2005). [39] Santos, F. C. and Pacheco, J. M. Scale-free networks provide [16] Hrdy, S. B. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of a unifying framework for the emergence of cooperation. Phys. Mutual Understanding. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Rev. Lett. 95, 098104 (2005). MA, (2011). [40] Pacheco, J. M., Traulsen, A., and Nowak, M. A. Coevolution [17] Nowak, M. A. and Highfield, R. SuperCooperators: Altruism, of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed. Free linking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 258103 (2006). Press, New York, (2011). [41] G´omez-Garde˜nes, J., Campillo, M., Flor´ıa, L. M., and [18] Capraro, V. and Rand, D. G. Do the right thing: Experimental Moreno, Y. Dynamical organization of cooperation in com- evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than eq- plex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108103 (2007). uity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment [42] Ohtsuki, H., Nowak, M. A., and Pacheco, J. M. Breaking the and Decision Making 13, 99–111 (2018). symmetry between interaction and replacement in evolution- [19] Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A. M. Prisoner’s dilemma: A ary dynamics on graphs. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 108106 (2007). study in conflict and cooperation, volume 165. University of [43] Lee, S., Holme, P., and Wu, Z.-X. Emergent hierarchical struc- Michigan Press, (1965). tures in multiadaptive games. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 028702 [20] Skyrms, B. The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Struc- (2011). ture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., (2004). [44] Mathiesen, J., Mitarai, N., Sneppen, K., and Trusina, A. [21] Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Journal of Natural Ecosystems with mutually exclusive interactions self-organize Resources Policy Research 1, 243–253 (2009). to a state of high diversity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 188101 [22] Hamilton, W. D. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. (2011). i. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 1–16 (1964). [45] Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., and Szabo, G. Defense mechanisms [23] Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quar- of empathetic players in the spatial ultimatum game. Physical terly Review of Biology 46, 35–57 (1971). Review Letters 109, 078701 (2012). [24] Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. Evolution of indirect reci- [46] Assaf, M. and Mobilia, M. Metastability and anomalous fixa- procity by image scoring. Nature 393, 573 (1998). tion in evolutionary games on scale-free networks. Phys. Rev. [25] Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, Lett. 109, 188701 (2012). and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, [47] G´omez, S., D´ıaz-Guilera, A., G´omez-Garde˜nes, J., P´erez- 817–868 (1999). Vicente, C., Moreno, Y., and Arenas, A. Diffusion dynamics [26] Bolton, G. E. and Ockenfels, A. Erc: A theory of equity, reci- on multiplex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 028701 (2013). procity, and competition. The American Economic Review 90, [48] Knebel, J., Kr¨uger, T., Weber, M., and Frey, E. Coexistence 166–193 (2000). and survival in conservative Lotka-Volterra networks. Phys. [27] Charness, G. and Rabin, M. Understanding social preferences Rev. Lett. 110, 168106 (2013). with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 117, [49] Pinheiro, F., Santos, M. D., Santos, F., and Pacheco, J. Ori- 817–869 (2002). gin of peer influence in social networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, [28] Engelmann, D. and Strobel, M. Inequality aversion, efficiency, 098702 (2014). and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. [50] Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., and Szab´o, G. Topology-independent The American Economic Review 94, 857–869 (2004). impact of noise on cooperation in spatial public goods games. [29] Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., and Nowak, M. A. Spontaneous Physical Review E 80, 056109 (2009). giving and calculated greed. Nature 489, 427 (2012). [51] Perc, M. High-performance parallel computing in the class- [30] Capraro, V. and Halpern, J. Y. Translucent players: Explain- room using the public goods game as an example. European ing cooperative behavior in social dilemmas. Proceedings of Journal of Physics 38, 045801 (2017). the 15th conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and [52] Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., and Szab´o, G. Punish, Knowledge 215, 114–126 (2016). but not too hard: How costly punishment spreads in the spa- [31] Halpern, J. Y. and Rong, N. Cooperative equilibrium. In Pro- tial public goods game. New Journal of Physics 12, 083005 ceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous (2010). Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1, 1465– [53] Szolnoki, A., Szab´o, G., and Perc, M. Phase diagrams for 1466. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and the spatial public goods game with pool punishment. Physical Multiagent Systems, (2010). Review E 83, 036101 (2011). [32] Barcelo, H. and Capraro, V. Group size effect on cooperation [54] Perc, M. and Szolnoki, A. Self-organization of punishment in in one-shot social dilemmas. Scientific Reports 5, 7937 (2015). structured populations. New Journal of Physics 14, 043013 [33] Rand, D. G., Nowak, M. A., Fowler, J. H., and Christakis, (2012). N. A. Static network structure can stabilize human coopera- [55] Wang, Z., Xia, C.-Y., Meloni, S., Zhou, C.-S., and Moreno, tion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17093–17098 (2014). Y. Impact of social punishment on cooperative behavior in [34] Nowak, M. A. and May, R. M. Evolutionary games and spatial complex networks. Scientific Reports 3, 3055 (2013). chaos. Nature 359, 826 (1992). [56] Chen, X., Szolnoki, A., and Perc, M. Probabilistic sharing [35] Lieberman, E., Hauert, C., and Nowak, M. A. Evolutionary solves the problem of costly punishment. New Journal of dynamics on graphs. Nature 433, 312 (2005). Physics 16, 083016 (2014). [36] Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., and Nowak, M. A. [57] Chen, X., Szolnoki, A., and Perc, M. Competition and cooper- A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and ation among different punishing strategies in the spatial public social networks. Nature 441, 502 (2006). goods game. Physical Review E 92, 012819 (2015). [37] Perc, M. and Szolnoki, A. Coevolutionary games – A mini [58] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Second-order free-riding on antiso- review. BioSystems 99, 109–125 (2010). cial punishment restores the effectiveness of prosocial punish- [38] Wang, Z., Wang, L., Szolnoki, A., and Perc, M. Evolution- ment. Physical Review X 7, 041027 (2017). ary games on multilayer networks: A colloquium. European [59] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Reward and cooperation in the spa- 5

tial public goods game. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 92, 38003 [82] Kuperman, M. N. and Risau-Gusman, S. The effect of topol- (2010). ogy on the spatial ultimatum game. Eur. Phys. J. B 62, 233– [60] Hilbe, C. and Sigmund, K. Incentives and opportunism: from 238 (2008). the carrot to the stick. Proc. R. Soc. B 277, 2427–2433 (2010). [83] Equ´ıluz, V. M. and Tessone, C. Critical behavior in an evolu- [61] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Evolutionary advantages of adap- tionary ultimatum game with social structure. Adv. Complex tive rewarding. New Journal of Physics 14, 093016 (2012). Systems 12, 221–232 (2009). [62] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Antisocial pool rewarding does not [84] da Silva, R., Kellerman, G. A., and Lamb, L. C. Statistical deter public cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B fluctuations in population bargaining in the ultimatum game: 282, 20151975 (2015). Static and evolutionary aspects. J. Theor. Biol. 258, 208–218 [63] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Competition of tolerant strategies (2009). in the spatial public goods game. New Journal of Physics 18, [85] Deng, L., Tang, W., and Zhang, J. The coevolutionay ulti- 083021 (2016). matum game on different network topologies. Physica A 390, [64] Perc, M. Stability of subsystem solutions in agent-based mod- 4227–4235 (2011). els. European Journal of Physics 39, 014001 (2018). [86] Gao, J., Li, Z., Wu, T., and Wang, L. The coevolutionary [65] Dickman, R. First- and second-order phase transitions in a ultimatum game. EPL 93, 48003 (2011). driven lattice gas with nearest-neighbor exclusion. Phys. Rev. [87] Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., and Szab´o, G. Accuracy in strategy E 64, 016124 (2001). imitations promotes the evolution of fairness in the spatial ul- [66] Szolnoki, A. Dynamical mean-field approximation for a pair timatum game. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 100, 28005 (2012). contact process with a particle source. Phys. Rev. E 66, 057102 [88] Deng, L., Wang, C., Tang, W., Zhou, G., and Cai, J. A network (2002). growth model based on the evolutionary ultimatum game. J. [67] Dickman, R. n-site approximations and coherent-anomaly- Stat. Mech. 2012, P11013 (2012). method analysis for a stochastic sandpile. Phys. Rev. E 66, [89] Iranzo, J., Flor´ıa, L., Moreno, Y., and S´anchez, A. Empathy 036122 (2002). emerges spontaneously in the ultimatum game: Small groups [68] Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M., and Szab´o, G. Evolu- and networks. PLoS ONE 7, e43781 (2011). tionary establishment of moral and double moral standards [90] Miyaji, K., Wang, Z., Tanimoto, J., Hagishima, A., and through spatial interactions. PLoS Computational Biology 6, Kokubo, S. The evolution of fairness in the coevolutionary ul- e1000758 (2010). timatum games. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 56, 13–18 (2013). [69] Szolnoki, A. and Perc, M. Correlation of positive and negative [91] Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., and Sefton, M. reciprocity fails to confer an evolutionary advantage: Phase Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Eco- transitions to elementary strategies. Physical Review X 3, nomic Behavior 6, 347–369 (1994). 041021 (2013). [92] Krupka, E. L. and Weber, R. A. Identifying social norms using [70] Greene, J. D. The rise of moral cognition. Cognition 135, coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? 39–42 (2015). Journal of the European Economic Association 11, 495–524 [71] Tomasello, M. and Vaish, A. Origins of human coopera- (2013). tion and morality. Annual review of psychology 64, 231–255 [93] Gneezy, U. Deception: The role of consequences. The Amer- (2013). ican Economic Review 95, 384–394 (2005). [72] Rawls, J. A theory of justice: Revised edition. Harvard univer- [94] Biziou-van Pol, L., Haenen, J., Novaro, A., Liberman, A. O., sity press, (2009). and Capraro, V. Does telling white lies signal pro-social pref- [73] Mackie, J. Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin UK, erences? Judgment and Decision Making 10, 538–548 (2015). (1990). [95] Capraro, V. Does the truth come naturally? time pressure [74] Wong, D. B. Moral relativity. Univ of California Press, increases honesty in one-shot deception games. Economics (1984). Letters 158, 54–57 (2017). [75] Rai, T. S. and Fiske, A. P. Moral psychology is relationship [96] Sutter, M. Deception through telling the truth?! experimental regulation: moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and evidence from individuals and teams. The Economic Journal proportionality. Psychological Review 118, 57 (2011). 119, 47–60 (2009). [76] Curry, O. S. Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred ap- [97] Capraro, V., Smyth, C., Mylona, K., and Niblo, G. A. Benevo- proach. In The evolution of morality, 27–51. Springer (2016). lent characteristics promote cooperative behaviour among hu- [77] Curry, O., Mullins, D., and Whitehouse, H. Is it good to co- mans. PLoS ONE 9, e102881 (2014). operate? testing the theory of morality-as-cooperation in 60 [98] Tappin, B. M. and Capraro, V. Doing good vs. avoiding bad in societies. Current Anthropology 1, osf.io/9546r (2018). prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality [78] Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. Trust, reciprocity, and preference hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- social history. Games and Economic Behavior 10, 122–142 chology 79, 64–70 (2018). (1995). [99] Nagel, T. Moral conflict and political legitimacy. Philosophy [79] Tajfel, H. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific & Public Affairs 16, 215–240 (1987). American 223, 96–103 (1970). [100] Pearce, W. B. and Littlejohn, S. W. Moral conflict: When [80] G¨uth, W., Schmittberger, R., and Schwarze, B. An experi- social worlds collide. Sage, (1997). mental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic [101] Bartos, O. J. and Wehr, P. Using conflict theory. Cambridge Behavior & Organization 3, 367–388 (1982). University Press, (2002). [81] Page, K. M., Nowak, M. A., and Sigmund, K. The spatial ul- timatum game. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 2177–2182 (2000).