Evolution of contribution timing in public goods games: Evolution of contribution timing

4Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Life-history strategies are a crucial aspect of life, which are complicated in group-living species, where pay-offs additionally depend on others' behaviours. Previous theoretical models of public goods games have generally focused on the amounts individuals contribute to the public good. Yet a much less-studied strategic aspect of public goods games, the timing of contributions, can also have dramatic consequences for individual and collective performance. Here, we develop two stage game theoretical models to explore how the timing of contributions evolves. In the first stage, individuals contribute to a threshold public good based on a performance schedule. The second stage begins once the threshold is met, and the individuals then compete as a function of their performance. We show how contributing rapidly is not necessarily optimal, because delayers can act as 'cheats,' avoiding contributing while reaping the benefits of the public good. However, delaying too long can put the delayers at a disadvantage as they may be ill-equipped to compete. These effects lead to bistability in a single group, and spatial diversity among multiple interacting groups.

References Powered by Scopus

912Citations
1619Readers
Get full text
869Citations
1617Readers

This article is free to access.

The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change

458Citations
529Readers
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Get full text

This article is free to access.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Morsky, B., Smolla, M., & Akçay, E. (2020). Evolution of contribution timing in public goods games: Evolution of contribution timing. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1927). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.0735

Readers over time

‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

79%

Researcher 2

11%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12

67%

Environmental Science 3

17%

Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2

11%

Chemical Engineering 1

6%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0