ArticlePDF Available

Motivations to reciprocate cooperation and punish defection are calibrated by estimates of how easily others can switch partners

PLOS
PLOS One
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Evolutionary models of dyadic cooperation demonstrate that selection favors different strategies for reciprocity depending on opportunities to choose alternative partners. We propose that selection has favored mechanisms that estimate the extent to which others can switch partners and calibrate motivations to reciprocate and punish accordingly. These estimates should reflect default assumptions about relational mobility: the probability that individuals in one’s social world will have the opportunity to form relationships with new partners. This prior probability can be updated by cues present in the immediate situation one is facing. The resulting estimate of a partner’s outside options should serve as input to motivational systems regulating reciprocity: Higher estimates should down-regulate the use of sanctions to prevent defection by a current partner, and up-regulate efforts to attract better cooperative partners by curating one’s own reputation and monitoring that of others. We tested this hypothesis using a Trust Game with Punishment (TGP), which provides continuous measures of reciprocity, defection, and punishment in response to defection. We measured each participant’s perception of relational mobility in their real-world social ecology and experimentally varied a cue to partner switching. Moreover, the study was conducted in the US (n = 519) and Japan (n = 520): societies that are high versus low in relational mobility. Across conditions and societies, higher perceptions of relational mobility were associated with increased reciprocity and decreased punishment: i.e., those who thought that others have many opportunities to find new partners reciprocated more and punished less. The situational cue to partner switching was detected, but relational mobility in one’s real social world regulated motivations to reciprocate and punish, even in the experimental setting. The current research provides evidence that motivational systems are designed to estimate varying degrees of partner choice in one’s social ecology and regulate reciprocal behaviors accordingly.
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Motivations to reciprocate cooperation and
punish defection are calibrated by estimates
of how easily others can switch partners
Sakura AraiID
1,2
*, John Tooby
1,3
, Leda CosmidesID
1,2
1Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California, United States of
America, 2Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, California,
United States of America, 3Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California,
United States of America
*arai@psych.ucsb.edu
Abstract
Evolutionary models of dyadic cooperation demonstrate that selection favors different strat-
egies for reciprocity depending on opportunities to choose alternative partners. We propose
that selection has favored mechanisms that estimate the extent to which others can switch
partners and calibrate motivations to reciprocate and punish accordingly. These estimates
should reflect default assumptions about relational mobility: the probability that individuals in
one’s social world will have the opportunity to form relationships with new partners. This
prior probability can be updated by cues present in the immediate situation one is facing.
The resulting estimate of a partner’s outside options should serve as input to motivational
systems regulating reciprocity: Higher estimates should down-regulate the use of sanctions
to prevent defection by a current partner, and up-regulate efforts to attract better cooperative
partners by curating one’s own reputation and monitoring that of others. We tested this
hypothesis using a Trust Game with Punishment (TGP), which provides continuous mea-
sures of reciprocity, defection, and punishment in response to defection. We measured
each participant’s perception of relational mobility in their real-world social ecology and
experimentally varied a cue to partner switching. Moreover, the study was conducted in the
US (n= 519) and Japan (n= 520): societies that are high versus low in relational mobility.
Across conditions and societies, higher perceptions of relational mobility were associated
with increased reciprocity and decreased punishment: i.e., those who thought that others
have many opportunities to find new partners reciprocated more and punished less. The sit-
uational cue to partner switching was detected, but relational mobility in one’s real social
world regulated motivations to reciprocate and punish, even in the experimental setting. The
current research provides evidence that motivational systems are designed to estimate
varying degrees of partner choice in one’s social ecology and regulate reciprocal behaviors
accordingly.
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 1 / 28
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Arai S, Tooby J, Cosmides L (2022)
Motivations to reciprocate cooperation and punish
defection are calibrated by estimates of how easily
others can switch partners. PLoS ONE 17(4):
e0267153. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0267153
Editor: Luo-Luo Jiang, Zhejiang University of
Finance and Economics, CHINA
Received: January 12, 2022
Accepted: April 3, 2022
Published: April 19, 2022
Copyright: ©2022 Arai et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: This work was funded by an Academic
Senate Grant from University of California, Santa
Barbara, awarded to LC (Research Grant Account:
8-586963-19900-7; https://senate.ucsb.edu/
grants/faculty-research/) and by Overseas Study
Program from Yoshida Scholarship Foundation
awarded to SA (No Grant Number; https://www.
ysf.or.jp/englishpage/). The funders had no role in
1 Introduction
1.1 Evolutionary models of dyadic cooperation
The evolution of dyadic cooperation has been explored through evolutionary game theory
since the 1970s. A consistent finding is that decision rules that cause cooperation can evolve
and be maintained in a population by natural selection if agents can implement a strategy for
conditional cooperation. These are strategies that direct benefits to agents who cooperate rather
than those who defect. Defectors—cheaters—are individuals who accept the benefits of cooper-
ation but fail to provide sufficient benefits in return, either by not reciprocating at all or by
reciprocating too little [1]. There are, however, many different strategies for conditional coop-
eration. Which ones are favored by selection depends on the social ecology—especially on the
extent to which it provides options for switching partners.
In early models of conditional cooperation—also known as reciprocity—agents were not
permitted to choose partners or to avoid defectors by switching partners. Agents were ran-
domly paired with their partners, and they interacted with each partner repeatedly. They could
recognize and remember (at least some of) their history of interaction with a given partner,
and use that information to decide whether to cooperate or defect in a given round. This social
ecology favored sanction-based strategies, such as TIT FOR TAT, which cooperates when their
partner delivers benefits and defects when that partner defects [2]. These strategies are stable
against invasion by strategies that defect because they respond to defection by withholding
benefits or inflicting costs (“punishment”), and they resume cooperation only after the defect-
ing partner cooperates again. When agents with sanction-based strategies are paired with
other conditional cooperators, they repeatedly harvest the benefits of mutual cooperation,
allowing them to outcompete strategies that defect. Because switching partners to avoid defec-
tors is not an option in these models, Hammerstein and Noe¨[3] call them “partner control
models without outside options.” In this social ecology, cooperation is maintained by natural
selection because agents monitor their partner’s behavior and “control” it through positive
and negative sanctions. Empirical work suggests that some non-human organisms use sanc-
tion-based strategies in reciprocal cooperation [46].
Sanction-based strategies differ in detail: For example, some leave defectors [712], some
cooperate contingently, withdrawing cooperation after one defection [2], and yet others require
several defections, thereby maintaining cooperation with conditional cooperators who defected
by mistake [13]. But one’s reputation as a cooperator, defector, or punisher plays no role in
these strategies, beyond the history of interaction remembered by one’s current partner.
In the 1990s, evolutionary scientists began to explore selection in biological markets: social
ecologies in which agents can leave one cooperative partner and choose another [1416].
These partner choice models assume that agents can infer and represent the reputation of mul-
tiple potential partners based on available information, such as their behavior when interacting
with other individuals (did they cooperate? defect? punish?) or other observable traits (e.g.,
skill procuring valued resources). They also assume that agents can use reputation information
in deciding whether to stay with their current partner or switch to a different one. In these
models, competition to be chosen—or retained—as a cooperative partner “controls” defection
and stabilizes cooperation by the threat of partner switching [3]. Partners who defect are aban-
doned for partners who are more likely to provide benefits.
A social ecology in which agents can switch partners favors reputation-based strategies: ones
that (i) prefer partners who are likely to reciprocate—ones with a reputation as a reliable coop-
erator, and (ii) manage their reputation to attract valuable cooperative partners [1719].
Empirical studies have shown that many organisms, including humans, behave as if they have
evolved reputation-based strategies [2022].
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 2 / 28
study design, data collection and analysis, decision
to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
1.2 Strategies for cooperation under different conditions: Social ecologies
with low versus high partner choice
The strategies favored by selection differ in these two contexts because they pose quite different
adaptive problems, especially regarding the best response to defection [2325]. The early models,
which prevent partner choice entirely, are the most extreme version of a low partner choice ecol-
ogy. In this social ecology, the only way to minimize the costs of defections is to sanction the
defecting partner. If the partner is not reciprocating at all, one can go on strike—refuse to provide
benefits until the partner starts to cooperate—or punish the defection by inflicting a cost on the
partner, possibly at some cost to oneself. Neither party realizes the benefits of mutual cooperation
until the partner responds by cooperating. If the partner is under-reciprocating, one can down-
regulate the benefits one provides successively, until the partner responds by providing more in
return. But one does not have the option of switching to a more rewarding partner.
Selection pressures are different in a high partner choice ecology. The most extreme version
is a social ecology in which many alternative cooperative partners are available, information
about their reputations is free, and there is no cost to switching partners. Under these condi-
tions, the opportunity cost of staying with a partner who defects or under-reciprocates is high.
An opportunity cost is the benefit one would gain by choosing the best alternative option; in
this case, the opportunity cost is equal to the benefits you would harvest by interacting with
the most cooperative alternative partner who is willing to interact with you. The opportunity
cost is high when the payoff of remaining with a partner who defects or under-reciprocates is
lower than the payoff of switching to a more cooperative partner.
High opportunity costs select against sanction-based strategies—even those that never pay
a cost to punish a defector. When you down-regulate or withdraw cooperation to reform an
uncooperative partner, you are forgoing the benefits of mutual cooperation that you could
gain by interacting with a different, more cooperative partner. In a high partner choice ecol-
ogy, abandoning your current partner for a more cooperative one is more fitness-promoting
than retaining and trying to reform an uncooperative partner. This is true even if your current
partner does reciprocate; selection favors switching partners when your best outside option
provides higher payoffs than your current partner.
1.3 The problem of being chosen
Switching to a new, more cooperative partner will not be an option, however, if high value
cooperative partners do not want to interact with you. Because valuable cooperative partners
will prefer to interact with the most rewarding partners available to them, developing a reputa-
tion for cooperation is a way of competing for good partners in ecologies where partner choice
is high [26,27]. But what kind of reputation will attract valuable cooperative partners?
1.3.1 Reputation for providing benefits. The most straightforward way to acquire a repu-
tation as a good cooperator is to resist temptations to cheat and behave cooperatively [24].
Enhancing this reputation can be accomplished by providing as much—or more than others
in your social ecology [22]; initiating cooperative relationships by delivering benefits [28]; or
demonstrating skill at acquiring resources [29]. People invest in acquiring a cooperative repu-
tation, even in the laboratory: They are more generous in cooperative games when they can be
observed by third parties [30]. And partner choice can elicit “competitive altruism”: When the
observer will have the opportunity to choose a cooperative partner, people are more generous
than when partners are fixed or randomly assigned [22,3133].
1.3.2 Reputation for inflicting negative sanctions?. A reputation for sanctioning failures
to reciprocate may deter defection whether partner choice is low or high. But does it harm
your reputation as a valuable cooperator in high partner choice ecologies?
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 3 / 28
Not all failures to reciprocate arise from a disposition or intent to profit from the tempta-
tion to cheat. An otherwise good cooperator can make a mistake or be temporarily unable to
reciprocate due to injury or lack of resources [34]. Under these circumstances, sanctioning a
failure to reciprocate can trigger defection in return, jeopardizing the flow of benefits that
result from mutual cooperation [35]. Sanctioning mistakes carries additional risks when part-
ner choice is high: An otherwise good cooperator may leave you for a partner who is less puni-
tive and more rewarding. Sometimes there is a downside to sanctioning intentional defections:
An occasional defector who provides higher net benefits than any of your outside options may
leave for a more forgiving partner.
When partner choice is high, imposing negative sanctions not only risks a current relation-
ship; it could threaten future ones as well. There can be reputational costs to withdrawing ben-
efits and, especially, to inflicting punishment [36]. Few studies directly compare the effects of
these two methods of sanctioning in cooperative interactions. But the reputational conse-
quences of punishing have been explored in a handful of studies in which participants witness
several potential partners who vary in how punitive they are toward others. When asked if they
wanted to interact with a specific partner in various economic games, participants were less
likely to choose punitive over non-punitive partners as recipients [3739], although punishers
were sometimes more likely to be preferred as providers [37] (but see [38,39]). Potential part-
ners who sanctioned by punishing had a worse reputation than those who sanctioned by
rewarding [38,39]. In another study, punishers were trusted less (and proved less trustworthy)
than non-punishers, whereas generous behavior elicited trust [40].
Taken together, these studies suggest that inflicting punishment can decrease one’s desir-
ability as a potential cooperative partner. In high partner choice ecologies, this reputational
cost may not be compensated by eliciting more cooperation from defectors than withdrawing
benefits does, at least when strangers interact. In a repeated prisoners dilemma (PD) in which
there were two methods for sanctioning a partner—inflicting punishment or withdrawing for
one round—punishment did not elicit more cooperation than withdrawing cooperation [23].
In sum, what counts as adaptive behavior varies with social ecology. When partner choice is
limited, the only way to elicit cooperation from an uncooperative partner is to withhold bene-
fits or inflict punishment. But these negative sanctions may be unnecessary—and possibility
counter-productive—in high partner choice ecologies, where one’s bargaining power depends
on having good outside options: alternative partners who are not only cooperative, but also
willing to choose you. These considerations raise an under-explored question: Does informa-
tion about partner choice in one’s local ecology calibrate motivations to cooperate and punish?
1.4 Estimating degrees of partner choice
Computational systems that generate motivations to reciprocate, defect, or punish regulate
cooperative behavior. Their evolved design should reflect selection pressures common in the
social ecologies of our group-living hominin ancestors. Did these social ecologies select for
designs that implement sanction-based strategies or reputation-based strategies?
The evolutionary models discussed above represent two extremes on a partner choice con-
tinuum. At one extreme are models in which one can either engage in a relationship with a sin-
gle partner or forgo cooperation entirely. At the other extreme are models in which many
cooperation partners are available and switching partners is cost-free. But neither extreme was
common during hominin evolution.
Hunter-gatherers are rarely forced to engage with one and only one cooperative partner,
even when they live in very small bands. They usually have the option to forage individually
rather than cooperatively, or to cooperate exclusively with kin (which does not require
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 4 / 28
reciprocation to be advantageous) [4143]. Nor did they have access to an unlimited number
of partners with zero cost of switching. Most social ecologies were intermediate between these
two extremes.
Does this imply that human motivations to reciprocate, defect, or punish are tuned to a
social ecology with a single, intermediate level of partner choice? Not necessarily. The avail-
ability of cooperative partners, i.e., the pool of potential partners for dyadic cooperation,
depended, in part, on band size, which varied with foraging conditions from ~25 men,
women, and children—2 to 3 extended families—to as many as 500 for more sedentary
hunter-gatherers and for nomadic bands when they periodically aggregate [44]. This variation
could occur within a lifetime (with changes in season, rainfall, and game dispersal) and over
generations: From the first appearance of anatomically modern humans, global climate has
alternated between ice ages and warming periods; sometimes changed by 10˚C (18˚F) within a
few decades [45]; and varied with latitude as hominins dispersed across the globe. We propose
that this variation selected for motivational systems that treat partner choice as a continuous
variable and adjust behavior accordingly. All else equal, the perception that other people can
easily switch partners should up-regulate motivations to reciprocate their help and down-regu-
late motivations to sanction their defections.
This calibration requires mechanisms that can estimate the degree of partner choice in the
situation one is facing. This can be decomposed into two questions: (i) How much partner
choice is there in my local social ecology in general, and (ii) what are the prospects for partner
switching right now, in my immediate situation? Estimating the probability that one’s current
partner can switch to a better outside option is a judgment made under uncertainty. A mecha-
nism that is well-designed for estimating this probability might implement a Bayesian updat-
ing process [35,46].
When you have no previous history with a new person, and no specific knowledge about
that person’s value as a cooperator, the prior probability that this person will be able to switch
to a better outside option should be based on estimates of partner choice in your local social
ecology. This estimate reflects the prospects for switching partners for a person randomly
drawn from that ecology. It can be based on a variety of cues, such as how many individuals
you encounter on a regular basis, how frequently you encounter new people, how easy it is to
change social groups, how trustworthy the average person is, the prevalence of exploitive
behavior (including violence), whether the environment is resource-rich or resource-poor,
and the number of individuals who can afford to share resources with others.
This prior can be updated based on cues present in the immediate situation. These cues
might speak to qualities of the person or features of the situation. Qualities of the person rele-
vant to their outside options are judged from thin information: In ultimatum games, partici-
pants who see photos of their partners’ faces offer more to those whose faces had been rated
(by others) as more attractive, kind, cooperative, healthy, trustworthy, higher in status, and
(surprisingly) more productive as a cooperative forager [29,47]. A prior based on social ecol-
ogy could be updated based on features of the situation as well: Are we temporarily isolated or
are alternative partners available right now [48]? Does this situation draw people from my
ingroup or an outgroup [49]? A mechanism that is well-designed for estimating the probability
that a specific partner will switch should use person-specific and situation-specific cues to
adjust a prior based on social ecology upward or downward. The resulting estimate—a poste-
rior probability—represents your current partner’s ability to leave you for a better partner,
compared to an average individual from your local ecology.
This posterior probability should reflect both the local social ecology and cues about the
immediate situation. When cues in the immediate situation are minimal, the posterior proba-
bility should be closer to the prior probability, which was based on the local social ecology. As
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 5 / 28
you gain more experience of a particular partner, the posterior probability may depart more
from that prior. In either case, the posterior probability that your current partner can easily
switch partners should calibrate your motivations to cooperate with that person and invest in
your reputation as a valuable cooperator.
1.5 Relational mobility reflects partner choice in a social ecology
For a given social ecology, what is the prior probability that a newly encountered individual
will have the opportunity to leave a cooperative partnership with you to form a new one? This
probability is proportional to relational mobility: the number of opportunities in a given soci-
ety for individuals to form new relationships [50]. The more such opportunities the average
person has, the greater the degree of partner choice in that society.
A twelve-item scale created by Yuki, Schug, and colleagues [50] measures people’s perceptions
of relational mobility. It first prompts the rater to think of others in their immediate society, such
as people in their workplace or neighborhood. It then asks how much the rater agrees with state-
ments about other people, such as “They have many chances to get to know other people,” “There
are few opportunities for these people to form new friendships” (reverse-scored), “If they did not
like their current groups, they would leave for better ones.” The relational mobility scale measures
the extent to which other people are seen as having many alternative partners to choose from in
the context specified (e.g., group members, friends, or other relationships).
Perceptions of relational mobility vary across societies: Average scores are higher in the US
than in Japan, for example [51]. These scores predict societal differences in motivations that
are theoretically relevant to partner choice. In their review of the literature on relational mobil-
ity, Yuki, Schug, and colleagues summarized how people in different societies react to incen-
tives created by levels of relational mobility [52,53]. In societies where people believe
relational mobility is high, they are geared toward (i) looking for new partners and evaluating
their qualities, as well as (ii) advertising one’s qualities as a partner and displaying commit-
ment to desirable partners [51,54,55]. These behavioral tendencies suggest the operation of
reputation-based strategies: efforts to choose better partners based on their reputation and to
be chosen by improving one’s reputation as a valuable cooperator.
Where relational mobility is low, people behave as if they have few outside options. Oishi
et al. [53] report that people in these social ecologies are more likely to (i) invest in maintaining
cooperation within small, close-knit groups, and (ii) avoid being excluded from these close-
knit cooperative relationships by cooperating rather than defecting with their current partners.
They behave as if their partners are enacting sanction-based strategies: They cooperate with
existing partners by default, and assume their partners are ready to respond to defection by
imposing negative sanctions [49,56].
The prior probability that other people in your social ecology can switch partners varies
with relational mobility: the number of opportunities the average person has to form new rela-
tionships. Perceptions of relational mobility are mental representations of this prior probabil-
ity: They reflect the mind’s estimate of how much partner choice others can exercise in your
local social ecology. If the mind is designed to treat partner choice as a continuous variable,
then measures of relational mobility should regulate motivations to reciprocate, defect, and
punish, especially when interacting with people you do not know.
1.6 The current experiment
Here we investigate the design of motivational systems that regulate dyadic cooperation. The
goal is to see if motivations to cooperate with, punish, and/or switch partners are calibrated by
estimates of the degree to which others can exercise partner choice. If the mind is designed to
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 6 / 28
treat partner choice as a continuous variable, these motivations should vary with relational
mobility—an estimate of partner choice in one’s local social ecology—and with verbal cues,
delivered with the instructions, about partner choice in the immediate situation. As estimates
of the probability that a partner can switch increase, we expect concern with one’s reputation
as a cooperative partner to increase, leading to more reciprocation and less punishment.
We proceeded as follows. To measure motivations to cooperate with, punish, and switch
partners, we used a game from behavioral economics in which two individuals can benefit by
mutual cooperation: a Trust Game with Punishment (TGP) [57]. It provides two interacting
individuals—a truster and a responder—an opportunity to benefit each other by reciprocally
cooperating (see Fig 1). The truster, who starts with 100 points, decides how many to invest in
their partnership. Because the invested points are tripled, both partners can be better off, but
only if the responder shares enough of them with the truster (more than 1/3). If the responder
gives too little, the truster has an opportunity to punish this decision (see Section 2.2.1).
Each participant completed the relational mobility scale, to measure their estimate of how
much partner choice others in general can exercise in their local social ecology. Before the
TGP, half were told they could switch partners after 2 rounds of the game (High Partner Choice
condition), and half were told they would interact with the same partner for the entire study
(Low Partner Choice condition). These instructions served as cues to partner choice in the
immediate situation. After two rounds, participants in the former condition were asked
whether they wanted to switch partners.
In addition to measuring individual perceptions of relational mobility, the study was con-
ducted in two countries where perceptions of relational mobility differ on average: the US
(high) and Japan (low).
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Participants
Participants (N = 1039) were from the US (n= 519, 53.5% male, M
age
= 38.84, SD
age
= 11.52),
recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk, and Japan (n= 520, 53.8% male, M
age
= 41.73, SD
age
=
9.64), recruited via an equivalent crowdsourcing website, Lancers, with instructions translated to Jap-
anese by a native speaker (the first author). They were compensated approximately 3 dollars (either
in US dollars or Japanese Yen) for their participation in the study, which lasted about 25 minutes.
Those who wished to participate in the study first completed an informed consent form.
After the study, participants received a written debriefing about the study design and purposes.
They were then asked for consent to use their data; it was explained that they would be com-
pensated regardless of their answer. Fourteen participants who did not provide consent were
excluded from the analysis. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Uni-
versity of California, Santa Barbara (Human Subjects Committee). See S1 Appendix for mate-
rials and S2 Appendix for data.
2.2 Design
There were two experimental conditions: High versus Low Partner Choice. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of them. After reading instructions for a TGP [57], they were told
that they would be paired with a partner.
In the Low Partner Choice condition, participants were told that they would be interacting
with the same partner for the rest of the study. In the High Partner Choice condition, the
instructions explained that, after interacting with the same partner twice in two TGPs, they
had a choice: (i) They could switch to a new, unknown partner, or (ii) they could remain with
their current partner for the next TGP—but only if that partner chose to remain with them.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 7 / 28
Thus, they knew before their first TGP that keeping their current partner might depend on
their reputation in that partner’s eyes.
Note that participants in the High Partner Choice condition could decide they wanted to
interact with a new partner after the second round, but they were not permitted to choose
among alternative partners (and had no information about such partners). This was for strict
experimental control, to ensure that the High and Low conditions differed in only one respect:
whether people could leave their current partner or not.
2.2.1 Reciprocation and punishment in the TGP. Before the TGP, participants were told
that they were going to be given points that could be used during the interaction. They were
asked to imagine that the points they earned would be converted to real money at the end of
Fig 1. The flow of TGP and partner switching. Participants interacted with their partner in the Trust Game with
Punishment (TGP). After interacting once (as the truster or the responder), the participant and the partner switched
roles and interacted in the TGP again (order counterbalanced). After interacting with the same partner twice, once in
each role, participants in the High Partner Choice condition decided whether they wanted to continue interacting with
their current partner in the next TGP, or switch to a new partner. Participants in the Low Partner Choice condition
were reminded that they would continue interacting with the same partner.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.g001
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 8 / 28
the study. In the TGP, participants experienced both roles, truster and responder (order coun-
terbalanced across participants). The TGP was same as the standard Trust Game, except a pun-
ishment phase was added after the responder’s decision [57]. We will use terms such as
“reciprocation” and “punishment” to describe the logic of the game, but these terms were not
used in the instructions to participants.
Participants were told they would interact with another participant. In reality, they interacted
with sham partners simulated by a program. This procedure, which was the only deception in the
study, was necessary to examine hypotheses about how people react to different reciprocal behaviors.
Before the interaction began, each participant (real and sham) was given 50 points as “a
bonus.” This was done to ensure that trusters had enough points to punish the responder,
regardless of how many points the responder returned to the truster.
The TGP had the following structure. The truster was given an endowment of 100 points to
send or keep. The truster could send any number of points to the responder, from 0 P
100, in 10-point increments. The P points sent to the responder were tripled, and the
responder decided what percentage of (now) 3P points to return to the truster. (Options were
displayed as both percentages of 3P and points; see S1 Appendix.) The percentage returned is
the dependent variable that measures reciprocation by the participant (Dependent Variable
[DV] 1: Reciprocation by the participant; 0–100% in 10% increments).
If the truster sends nothing to the responder, the truster keeps all 100 points. Sending points
is a risky investment—because they are tripled, both parties can be better off, but only if the
responder sends enough points back to the truster. Any points sent to the responder are at risk
because the responder could decide to send nothing back to the truster, or so few points that the
truster is worse off than if she had not risked the P points that she invested. The truster, whose
payoff is [(100 –P) + (.X×3P)], breaks even when the responder returns 1/3 of 3P points (pay-
off = 100, i.e., 100 –P + P). The truster realizes a positive payoff when the responder returns
more than 1/3 of the tripled points and incurs a loss when less than 1/3 of 3P is returned.
After seeing what percentage the responder gave to the truster, the truster had the option to
pay 10 points to subtract 30 points from the responder; the truster could pay up to 50 points,
in 10-point increments, to subtract up to 150 points from the responder. Note that the instruc-
tions referred only to subtracting points; this was not labelled “punishment”. The instructions
included examples to make sure that participants understood the consequences of various
decisions (see S1 Appendix for the full text of instructions).
When the participant was the responder, the (sham) truster always sent 70 points to the par-
ticipant (70% of the endowment). These were tripled to 210 points. The participant responded
by deciding what percent of these points to return to the truster. If the participant returned
less than 50% of the 210 points, there was a 50% chance that the truster would pay 20 points to
deduct 60 points from the participant. Participants who returned 50% or more of the points
they received were never punished. (Punishing cooperators—anti-social punishment—is a rare
response in real life for these populations [58,59]. Our interest herein is motivations to coop-
erate with or leave partners who punish acts that could be perceived as failures to reciprocate
sufficiently.) When the participant was the truster, the responder returned either 50% or 20%
of the 3P points that the participant had made available. The participant then decided whether
to deduct points from the responder. The number of points the participant paid to deduct
points from the responder is the dependent variable that measures the participant’s willingness
to punish the partner (DV2: Amount paid to punish the responder; 0–50 points).
After the instructions for the TGP, participants had two practice rounds, once as the truster
and once as the responder. They then answered five comprehension check questions about the
TGP and their experimental condition (see S1 Appendix). About 2% of the initial participants
(20 people) failed this check; these individuals did not progress to the TGP phase of the study.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 9 / 28
2.2.2 Partner switching after the TGP. After interacting with their partners in the TGP
twice—once as a truster and once as a responder—participants were reminded that they were
going to play the TGP again. Participants in the Low Partner Choice condition were reminded
that they would continue interacting with the same partner. Participants in the High Partner
Choice condition were asked whether they would like to stay with their current partner or
switch to a different partner (DV3: the decision to switch partners). Before deciding, they were
reminded that they would keep the same partner only if both they and their partner chose not
to switch. (N.B.: participants did not have to pay a cost to switch or to stay.) At the point when
a third TGP was about to commence, all participants were told that the program had decided
that there would be no further rounds of the TGP.
2.2.3 Measures. After the TGP, participants completed the relational mobility (RM) scale
twice, in different forms: the original and a modified version (order counterbalanced). The
original RM scale asked participants how many opportunities they think people around them
have to find new partners (RM others): e.g., “It is easy for them to meet new people.” The mod-
ified one asked the same questions, but about themselves (RM self). The RM self scale had the
same 12 items as the original scale, except that words referring to others were replaced with
words referring to oneself: e.g., “It is easy for me to meet new people." RM self was added to
control for individual differences in perceptions of one’s own opportunities to find new part-
ners, which need not correspond to estimates of the relational mobility of other people in
one’s social ecology. We also recorded which society participants were from (US or Japan).
3 Results
Data were analyzed using R 4.0.3 [60]. We examined the effects of the experimental manipula-
tion (High versus Low Partner Choice condition), participants’ relational mobility scores (oth-
ers and self), and society (US versus Japan) on the three DVs: (i) Reciprocation by the
participant (DV1), (ii) Amount paid to punish the responder (DV2), and (iii) the decision to
switch partners (DV3; only in the condition that permitted switching: High Partner Choice).
3.1 What predicts the decision to switch partners?
The logic of reputation-based strategies assumes that behavior in reciprocal interactions influ-
ences the probability that one’s partner will continue the cooperative relationship or switch to
a different partner. So, we first examine whether decisions to reciprocate and punish affected
DV3: the participant’s decision to switch partners. The opportunity to switch partners was
available only in the High Partner Choice condition (n= 505).
Decisions to switch were made after the participant interacted with the same partner twice
and experienced both roles: one interaction as truster, the other as responder. When given the
option to stay or switch, 37.8% of participants chose to switch partners.
To determine which behaviors influence the decision to switch, we conducted logistic
regressions, using the glm function in R [60]. In preliminary analyses, we found that the order
of roles—whether the participant played truster or responder first—did not predict decisions
to switch partners, nor did the participants’ relational mobility scores (others and self); ps>
.05. These variables did not improve the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) either, so they
were removed from the model. The model focused on the choices participants made, the
responses they experienced, and their society (US = 1, Japan = 0). We checked for multicolli-
nearity using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF values <1.6). Although including interactions
improved model fit, many of them showed strong multicollinearity even after centering vari-
ables by subtracting the mean [61] (VIF >10), making them difficult to interpret. For this rea-
son, the model below does not include interaction terms.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 10 / 28
Five predictor variables from the TGP were entered into the analysis. Two arise from the
TGP in which the participant was the responder (and the [sham] truster sent P = 70 points):
(i) Reciprocation by the participant: What percent of 3P did the participant return to the
truster? (0–100%).
(ii) Punishment received: Did the truster punish the participant’s response? (1 = punished,
0 = not punished).
Three predictors arise from the TGP in which the participant was the truster:
(iii) Trust: How many points did the participant send to their partner? (P = 0–100 points).
(iv) Defection by the responder: Did the (sham) partner respond by reciprocating (returning
50% of 3P) or defecting (returning 20% of 3P)? (50% = 0, 20% = 1).
(v) Amount paid to punish the responder: How much did participants pay to punish their part-
ner’s response? (0–50 points).
Fig 2 summarizes how each predictor affected the probability (adjusted odds ratio) that the
participant would decide to switch partners when controlling for all the others. An odds ratio
of 1 means the predictor variable had no independent effect on partner switching. See S3
Appendix for the full model.
3.1.1 Are participants who were punished more likely to switch partners?. When par-
ticipants were responders, the sham truster could punish them. Fig 2 shows the effect of each
predictor variable on the decision to switch partners, when controlling for all the others. It
shows that participants who were punished were three times more likely to switch partners
than those who were not, controlling for the other predictors: Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.10 (95% CI
= [1.80, 5.40]).
Because that odds ratio is based on all participants, it includes those who favored their part-
ner over themselves by returning 50% or more (see Table 1). Their decision to switch partners
Fig 2. Adjusted odds ratio of each predictor for the decision to switch partners. Estimates of how much each
predictor affected the decision to switch partners, when controlling for the five others. An odds ratio greater than 1
indicates a greater likelihood of partner switching; an odds ratio less than 1 indicates a lower probability of partner
switching. Bars are 95% confidence intervals. Reciprocation by the participant = percent of 3P that the participant
returned to the truster (0–100%). Punishment by the partner = whether the truster punished the participant’s response
(1, 0). Trust = P, the number of points the participant sent to the responder (0–100). Defection by the responder = the
responder defected or reciprocated on the participant (1, 0). Amount paid to punish the responder = number of points
the participant paid to punish the responder (0–50).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.g002
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 11 / 28
cannot be a response to being punished, however, because no one who returned 50% or more
was ever punished. To see the effect of being punished on partner switching more clearly, the
following analyses focus on participants who returned 40% or less, about half of whom were
punished.
Table 1 shows the payoffs to self (responder) and partner (sham truster) for each choice the
responder could make. The sham truster always kept 30 points from the 100-point endow-
ment; the 70 points the truster sent to the responder were tripled to 210 points, and the partici-
pant’s task was to decide how many of these points to return to the truster. The responder’s
options were limited to 10% increments of 210. What counts as a failure to reciprocate, per-
haps worthy of punishment?
Consider these payoffs in light of two concepts of reciprocity discussed in the literature: (i)
ensuring the partner gains from having cooperated and (ii) ensuring equal payoffs for both
partners [1,24]. The sham truster could have earned 100 points (the endowment) by investing
nothing in the responder; by risking 70 points, the sham truster enabled a positive payoff for
both parties: the responder and self. A responder who returns more than 70 points—at least
40% of the tripled points—ensures a gain for the truster. Instead of 100 points, the truster will
earn from 114 points (40% returned) to 240 points (100% returned).
Returning less than 70 points is a clear-cut case of defection. It creates a loss for the truster,
who could have kept all 100 points, leaving the responder with nothing. Having risked 70
points, the truster takes a loss whenever the responder returns 30% (63 points) or less. The
more the responder keeps, the worse off the sham truster is for having risked 70 of 100 points.
This analysis is general to any positive number of points the truster sends. When the responder
returns 40% (or more), the truster’s payoff is positive: (100-P) + .4×3P = 100 + .2P (it would be
positive for any return >[1/3]P). The truster’s payoff is negative when the responder returns
30% or less: (100-P) + .3×3P = 100 - .1P.) Twenty-nine percent of responders returned 30% or
less (148/505).
When participants were asked “How many points do you want to send back to your part-
ner?”, they chose from a display like the first two rows of Table 1 (shaded in blue). It showed
how many points the truster would receive when the participant returned X% of 210 points
(see S1 Appendix). Because participants know that the truster risked 70 points, they know the
truster realizes a net gain when more than 70 points are returned and a net loss otherwise.
They also know the total payoff to the truster is the number of points the participant returns
plus the 30 points that the truster kept.
No option results in equal payoffs for both of them. Equal payoffs would require returning
90 points to the sham truster—42.8% of 210—resulting in 120 for each (30 + 90 for truster,
210–90 for responder). Because responders were only allowed to return points in 10% incre-
ments, every option favors self over truster (40% or less) or truster over self (50% or more). A
participant who views equality as appropriate reciprocation would return 40%: This option
ensures a positive payoff for the partner while minimizing the difference in payoffs between
Table 1. Payoffs as a function of percent returned by the responder.
% returned 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Points returned to truster 0 21 42 63 84 105 126 147 168 189 210
Truster’s payoff30 51 72 93 114 135 156 177 198 219 240
Responder’s payoff 210 189 168 147 126 105 84 63 42 21 0
The truster can earn 100 by not investing in the responder. Returning at least 40% gives the truster a positive payoff; 40% minimizes the difference in payoffs but favors
the responder; 50% or more favors the truster over the responder.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.t001
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 12 / 28
self and truster (see below). The majority of responders (259/505 = 51%) chose options that
bracketed 42.8% (strict equality) by returning 50% (180/505 = 36%) or 40% (79/505 = 16%).
With these consequences in mind, we analyze responses to punishment.
Participants who returned 50% or more of the 210 points they received favored their part-
ner, the sham truster, over themselves; they were never punished for this decision. Of these
participants, 34% wanted to switch partners (95/278). The 227 participants who returned 40%
or less favored themselves over their partner. Of those who were not punished, 31% wanted to
switch partners (35/113)—comparable to the 34% found for those who returned 50% or more.
So, in the absence of punishment, about one-third of participants decided to switch partners.
We next examine the effect of being punished on the 227 participants who returned 40% or
less. These participants favored themselves over the sham truster, but to different degrees. Fig
3shows how many participants returned from 0 to 100%, and the probability that they wanted
to switch partners as a function of being punished by their current partner.
For the participants who returned 40% or less (n= 227), the probability of switching was
higher for those punished than for those who were not punished: 53.5% versus 31% (61/114 vs.
35/113; Z= 3.44, p= .0003). They were 3.35 times more likely to switch when the truster pun-
ished them than not, controlling for all other predictors (OR = 3.35, 95% CI = [1.84, 6.27]).
What about unjust punishment? Those who returned 30% or less are clearly defectors, but
is returning 40% a failure to reciprocate? These responders satisfied both concepts of reciproc-
ity: 40% provides a positive payoff to both parties (114 points for truster, 126 points for
responder) with the smallest deviation from equality—a 12-point difference. Returning 50%—
105 points—is an equal division of the points the responder received but, because the truster
kept 30 points of the initial endowment, it results in a larger departure from equality: a
30-point difference (135 points for truster, 105 points for responder). Do those who returned
40%—a positive payoff with almost equal outcomes—feel wronged by being punished?
Of the 79 participants who returned 40%, 73% of those who were punished wanted to
switch partners (27/37), compared to 33% of those who were not punished (12/42).
Fig 3. Probability of switching partners as a function of how much the participant returned and whether the
participant was punished. The y-axis shows the percentage of participants who decided to switch partners in the High
Partner Choice condition. The x-axis shows what percent of 210 points the participant (responder) returned to the
partner (truster). (How many individuals returned each amount is shown in parentheses.) Red bars: participants
whose partner punished them by deducting 60 points; blue bars: participants who were not punished by their partner.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.g003
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 13 / 28
Controlling for other predictors, those who were punished for returning 40% were almost ten
times more likely to switch partners than those who were not punished (OR = 9.58, 95% CI =
[2.82, 40.81]). By contrast, being punished had no significant effect on the true defectors—
those who inflicted a negative payoff by returning 30% or less (n= 148) (OR = 1.99, 95% CI =
[0.94, 4.33]). (See S4 Appendix)
3.1.2 Participants were more likely to stay with responders who reciprocated their
trust. As truster, the participant could send 0 P100 points to the responder. Sending
P>0 points creates 3P points, making cooperation for mutual benefit possible. The truster’s
payoff is 100 –P +.X(3P). Both benefit if the (sham) responder reciprocates by returning 50%
of the 3P points: The truster gains a positive payoff because 100 –P + .5(3P) = 100 +
.5P >100. Returning 20% ensures a loss for the truster: 100 –P + .2(3P) = 100 - .4P <100.
This is a failure to reciprocate, indeed a defection (see above Section 3.1.1). Participants were
far more likely to leave defectors—partners who returned only 20% of 3P—than reciproca-
tors (those who returned 50% of 3P): OR = 4.45 (95% CI = [2.91, 6.89]). Reciprocation by the
responder greatly increased the probability that the participant wanted to continue their
partnership.
3.1.3 Did participants who punished their partner want to remain in that relation-
ship?. Switching partners defeats the purpose of punishing your current partner, if the func-
tion of punishing is to elicit more cooperation from a partner you plan to stay with [2]. Yet
those who punished their partner were not more likely to remain in that relationship; indeed,
controlling for other predictors, the more points participants paid to punish the partner, the
more likely they were to leave the punished partner (Amount paid to punish the responder:
OR = 1.02; 95% CI = [1.01, 1.03]).
3.1.4 What else affected partner switching?. The more points participants entrusted to
their partner, the more likely they were to want a new partner, although the effect was very
small (Trust: OR = 1.01; 95% CI = [1.00, 1.02]). Also, American participants were less likely to
switch partners than Japanese participants (Society: OR = 0.64; 95% CI = [0.42, 0.97]). How
much participants returned to the truster was unrelated to their probability of switching part-
ners (Reciprocation by the participant: OR = 1.00; 95% CI = [0.99, 1.01]).
3.1.5 Partner switching summary. Having been punished was the second largest predic-
tor of the decision to leave one’s partner in this study. Participants were less likely to stay with
responders who defected—the largest predictor—and, all else equal, Americans were more
likely to stay than Japanese participants. This implies that one’s reputation as a cooperator
affects the probability of keeping a partner: Reciprocation increases that probability and pun-
ishing decreases it. Participants’ assumptions about relational mobility in their society did not
predict their own decision to switch; their partner’s behavior did.
3.2 Inflicting punishment
3.2.1 Did participants pay to punish?. When participants were the truster, they could
punish their partner’s response, whether the partner had returned 50% or 20% of 3P points.
Twenty-seven percent of participants chose to inflict punishment (282/1039); 78% of these
individuals were punishing defectors—those who returned 20% of 3P points (219/282). When
the partner had defected, 44% of participants paid to punish the defection (219/496). Only
12% punished partners who had returned 50% of 3P points (63/543). (Trusters who punished
reciprocators risked about 15 fewer points as truster than those who did not [P = ~45 vs. ~62
points] and were more likely to have been punished in round 1 [46% vs. 16% punished].)
Participants could pay 0–50 points (in 10-point increments) to punish their partner’s
response, whether the partner had defected or reciprocated. The mean of amount of
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 14 / 28
punishment inflicted was 8.15 points (SD 15.61; range 0–50; median = 0). As expected, the
mean was higher in response to defection than reciprocation: 13.59 (SD 18.63) vs. 3.19 (SD
9.91), t(738.69) = 11.09, p= 10
16
).
When a responder defects, trusters who risked more suffer greater losses; many theories
predict that greater losses will up-regulate motivations to impose negative sanctions—whether
these involve withdrawing benefits or inflicting costs [62]. Trust—the number of points the
truster risked—was indeed correlated with the desire to withdraw benefits by leaving a defect-
ing partner: r(242) = .31 (p= 10
6
). Inflicting costs showed the same pattern and effect size:
Participants who sent more points as truster paid more to punish a defecting partner: r(494) =
.31 (p= 10
12
). For this reason, the analyses that follow control for both Trust, that is, P, the
number of points the participant risked, and defection by the sham responder.
3.2.2 Did participants punish less when they thought others can exercise partner
choice?. The results on partner switching (section 3.1) showed that being punished drives
partners away: Inflicting punishment decreases the probability that others will choose to part-
ner with you. This is a liability when other people can exercise partner choice. We therefore
predicted that the perception that others can easily switch partners will down-regulate motiva-
tions to punish. To test this prediction, we assessed the amount of punishment delivered as a
function of relational mobility—an estimate of partner choice in one’s local social ecology—
and verbal cues about partner choice in the immediate situation, which were delivered with
the instructions. We also controlled for society: US versus Japan.
To determine which of these variables predicted amount of punishment delivered (Amount
paid to punish the responder: 0–50), we conducted multiple linear regression with the glm
function in R [60]. The predictors examined were condition (High Partner Choice = 1, Low
Partner Choice = 0), society (US = 1, Japan = 0), and participants’ perceived relational mobility
(RM others and RM self). These analyses controlled for whether the responder reciprocated or
defected on the participant (Defection by the responder: 50% returned = 0, 20% returned = 1)
and how many points participants entrusted to their partner (Trust: 0–100).
We also entered interactions between the predictors and, with stepwise selection, deter-
mined the best model (using the step function in R [60]). Based on AIC scores, the interactions
and RM self were removed from the model. All continuous variables were centered by sub-
tracting the mean to avoid multicollinearity issues [61] (resulting VIF values <1.3). See S3
Appendix for full models with unstandardized coefficients, associated confidence intervals,
and adjusted R
2
.
In determining responses, directly experiencing how a specific partner behaves should have
greater weight than any social ecological variable. We did indeed find carry-over effects: The
partner’s behavior in the first round affected participants’ responses in the second round
(whether the participant was truster or responder in round 1). To see whether social ecology
variables predict punishment in the absence of a prior history with the current partner, we ana-
lyzed Amount paid to punish the responder by those who played the truster role first (n= 509).
(Of these, n= 238 experienced a responder who defected.)
3.2.3 Did telling people they could switch partners decrease their motivation to pun-
ish?. No. There was no effect of Low vs. High Partner Choice condition on how much partic-
ipants paid to punish (β= -0.002, p= .96; n= 509). Telling them in advance whether they will
play all rounds with their current partner (Low Partner Choice) or have the opportunity to
switch partners after round 2 (High Partner Choice condition) did not influence their punish-
ment decisions, even if we restrict the analysis to the participants who experienced defection
(β= -0.03, p= .68; n= 238). Note that this is not because participants were insensitive to the
partner choice condition: We found that the condition did affect Reciprocation by the partici-
pant (DV1) (see Section 3.3.1).
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 15 / 28
3.2.4 Did how much people punished differ by society (US vs. Japan)?. Yes. All else
equal, American participants paid more to punish their responder than Japanese participants
did (β= 0.13, p= .003, n= 487). The effect of society was similar (but not significant) when the
analysis is restricted to the 238 participants whose responder defected (β= 0.11, p= .107).
3.2.5 Did perceptions of relational mobility in their local social ecology affect how
much people paid to punish?. Yes: The higher their RM others score, the less participants
paid to punish their partners (β= -0.14, p= .002, n= 487; when analyzing only those whose
responder defected, β= -0.20, p= .004, n= 238). That is, the more opportunities they think
others have to form new relationships, the less participants punished their partners. Equiva-
lently: Those who assume the average person in their social ecology has fewer outside options
inflicted more punishment. Fig 4 illustrates that this negative association holds, regardless of
condition and society.
3.3 What predicts reciprocation?
Reciprocation by the participant refers to the percent of 3P points that the participant returned
to the (sham) truster (3P = 210). The mean returned was 43.72% of 3P (SD = 21.43) and the
Fig 4. The effect of perceived relational mobility of others on punishment. Perceptions of other people’s relational
mobility (RM others) was negatively associated with how much the participant paid to punish their partner who
defected. The more they thought others could exercise partner choice, the less they punished the partner.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.g004
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 16 / 28
median was 50%; that is, most responders gave their partner a positive payoff by returning
40% to 100%. For those who responded in the first round (n = 530)—before experiencing any
punishment—71% gave their partner a positive payoff (67% of Americans, 76% of Japanese).
The more partner choice other people can exercise, the more motivated one should be to be
seen as a good cooperative partner. This led us to predict that motivations to reciprocate
would be up-regulated by perceptions that other people can easily switch partners. To test this
prediction, we conducted a multiple regression for Reciprocation in the same way as for
Amount paid to punish the responder (predictors: condition, society, RM others,RM self, and
their interaction terms). RM self was removed from the model based on AIC scores. After cen-
tering the continuous variables (see Section 3.2.2), we found no evidence of multicollinearity
(VIF values <4.4). As before, we only analyzed Reciprocation by participants who played the
responder role first, to avoid carry-over effects from round 1 (n = 530; 270 Americans and 260
Japanese). See S3 Appendix for full models.
3.3.1 Did telling people they could switch partners increase reciprocation?. Even
though we found no effect of condition on participants’ punishment behaviors, it did signifi-
cantly influence their motivation to reciprocate. Telling participants in advance whether they
would play all rounds with their current partner (Low partner choice) or have the opportunity
to switch partners after round 2 (High Partner Choice condition) had no main effect on Recip-
rocation by the participant (β= 0.10, p= .118), but it interacted with the other predictors.
There was a 2-way interaction between condition and society (β= -0.18, p= .023) and a
3-way interaction between condition, society, and RM others (β= 0.24, p= .006). These signifi-
cant interaction effects indicate that participants did detect, register, and respond to the verbal
cue about the possibility of partner choice in their immediate situation. To examine these
interactions, which all involve society, we ran the same regression model for each society sepa-
rately (see Section 3.3.4).
3.3.2 Did society (US vs. Japan) affect reciprocation?. Yes. Japanese participants
returned a larger percentage of the 3P points sent by the (sham) truster than Americans did (β
= -0.13, p= .036). The difference between societies was carried by the extremes. Americans
were more likely than Japanese to defect by returning 30% or less (33% vs. 24%, Z= 2.64, p=
.008 [90/270 vs. 63/260]) and less likely to reciprocate generously by returning 60% or more
(13% vs. 30%, Z= -4.74, p= 10
5
[36/270 vs. 78/260]). There was no difference in how likely
American and Japanese participants were to return 40% (16% vs. 15% [43/270 vs. 40/260]) or
50% (38% vs. 30% [101/270 vs. 79/260]).
There was also a 2-way interaction between society and RM others (β= -0.24, p= .004) (see
Section 3.3.4).
3.3.3 Did perceptions of relational mobility in their local social ecology affect partici-
pants’ motivations to reciprocate?. Yes. Participants’ motivation to reciprocate their part-
ner’s trust was up-regulated by their perceptions of relational mobility in their society (RM
others:β= 0.27, p= .0008). The more opportunities they thought people in their social ecology
have to leave unsatisfying relationships for better ones, the larger the percentage of 3P points
they returned as responders (i.e., those who thought others have fewer opportunities to change
relationship partners reciprocated less). Fig 5 illustrates that this positive association generally
holds, regardless of society and condition, except for American participants in the Low Partner
Choice condition.
3.3.4 How did condition and perceived relational mobility interact in each society?.
The patterns shown in Fig 5 suggest that the effect of perceived relational mobility might differ
across conditions and societies. Indeed, there was a 3-way interaction between condition, soci-
ety, and RM others (see Section 3.3.1). To examine this 3-way interaction, below we analyze
the interaction between condition and RM others separately in Japan and the US.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 17 / 28
Japanese participants (n= 260) up-regulated their motivation to reciprocate with their esti-
mate of other people’s relational mobility (RM others:β= 0.25, p= .002); the effect size is
about the same as when both societies were analyzed together. In Japan there was no signifi-
cant main effect of condition (β= 0.10, p= .15) or interaction between condition and RM oth-
ers (β= -0.11, p=. 175).
For American participants (n= 270), there was no main effect of RM others (β= -0.10, p=
.273), but there was an interaction (β= 0.24, p= .008) between this variable and condition—
whether they were told that they would play all rounds with the same partner or have the
opportunity to switch after round 2. When told they would have the opportunity to switch
partners, American’s perceptions of relational mobility regulated reciprocation, with the same
effect size as found in Japan (High Partner Choice condition, RM others predicting Reciproca-
tion by the participant:β= 0.25, p= .004, n= 128). This relationship was absent when Ameri-
cans were told they would always interact with the same partner (Low Partner Choice
condition, RM others predicting Reciprocation by the participant:β= -0.09, p= .306, n= 142).
This is not because Americans treated their partners poorly when the situation precluded
Fig 5. The effect of perceived relational mobility of others on reciprocation. Perceptions of other people’s relational
mobility (RM others) was positively associated with the percentage of points the participant returned to the partner (0–
100%). The more they thought others could exercise partner choice, the more they reciprocated.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153.g005
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 18 / 28
partner choice: Overall levels of reciprocation were similar across both conditions—42%
(Low) vs. 40% (High)—even when controlling for RM others (β= -0.12, p= .07).
If relational mobility represents the prior probability that people can find new relationship
partners in their local social ecology, then Americans updated that prior based on verbal cues
regarding the immediate situation, but Japanese participants did not.
3.4 Are qualities of the person used to update priors based on social
ecology?
Priors based on social ecology are most relevant when you have no other information about a
new partner. This prior should be most strongly updated by learning what your new partner is
like [63], with their actual behavior toward you a good cue to how they treat strangers. All else
equal, a good cooperator will have more outside options than a defector, so efforts to retain
your partner should increase with evidence that this partner is a valuable cooperator.
Consistent with this view, the partner’s behavior in round 1 influenced their behavior in
round 2, with little or no remaining effect of social ecology. For example, reciprocation in
round 2—the percent of 210 points that participants returned—reflected reciprocation vs.
defection by the sham partner in round 1: They returned much more to sham partners who
had reciprocated instead of defecting in round 1 (47.1% vs. 36.8%, t(457.72) = 5.49, p= 10
8
).
Controlling for all other factors, defection by the sham partner in round 1 predicted their
reciprocation in round 2 (β= -.23, p= 10
7
), but not their perceptions of relational mobility
(controlling for round 1 behaviors, RM others:β= .06, p= .345). Similarly, when the partner
defected in round 2, relational mobility had no influence on whether participants punished
them (β= -.11, p= .092, controlling for other factors).
Participants who returned 40% or less in round 1 had a 50% chance of being punished.
When these participants were trusters in round 2, relational mobility had no effect on how
many points they risked, but their partner’s round 1 behavior did. Participants who had not
been punished in round 1 risked more points in round 2 than those who had been punished
(53.60 vs. 40.16, t(230.91) = 3.13, p= .002; controlling for other factors, Punishment received
in round 1: β= -.22, p= .0002). This effect was strongest in those who were punished for
returning 40% in round 1 (β= -.41, p= .0001). Those who were punished in round 1 also paid
more to punish in round 2 than those who were not (12.05 vs. 6.49 points, t(233.79) = 2.76, p
= .006; controlling for other factors, β= .23, p= .0001). That is, many engaged in retaliatory
punishment.
In round 2, higher relational mobility had just one effect: Americans who believe people in
their social ecology can easily switch partners were less likely to punish a partner who had
reciprocated their trust (i.e., it decreased anti-social punishment in round 2; β= -.31, p= .012,
controlling for condition). (See S5 Appendix for the full regression models.)
4 Discussion
4.1 Evidence that motivational systems are designed for social ecologies
with varying levels of partner choice
Ancestral variation in the availability of cooperative partners would have favored the evolution
of motivational systems that treat partner choice as a continuous variable. Motivations to keep
valuable cooperative partners and abandon unrewarding ones should be up-regulated in
response to the perception that others can easily switch partners.
Here we tested the hypothesis that an individual’s motivations to reciprocate and punish
are calibrated by that person’s estimate of the degree to which others in their local social
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 19 / 28
ecology can exercise partner choice. This estimate is captured by measures of relational mobil-
ity [50]. The higher an individual’s relational mobility score, the more opportunities they
believe others have to leave unsatisfying relationships for better ones.
We assessed motivations to trust, reciprocate, defect, punish, and switch partners by allow-
ing people to cooperate for mutual benefit with a new individual. The results showed that
motivations to reciprocate and punish tracked participants’ perceptions of relational mobility.
The more partner choice they thought others in their social ecology could exercise, the more
they reciprocated their partner’s trust and the less they paid to punish their partner—even
when that partner had defected.
Providing incentives for desirable partners to stay in the relationship is the proposed func-
tion of these motivational calibrations. If that is correct, then people who have the opportunity
to switch partners will be more likely to stay with a partner who reciprocates their trust and
more likely to leave one who punishes them. After two rounds, half the participants were
asked if they wanted to keep their current partner or switch to someone new. Holding all else
equal, having been defected on more than quadrupled the odds that they wanted to switch and
having been punished tripled the odds they would choose to leave. These were the two biggest
independent predictors of switching decisions. The desire to leave a partner who punished was
especially strong for participants who returned 40%—a response that creates a positive payoff
for both parties that is almost equal. These individuals were almost 10 times more likely to
want a new partner.
4.1.1 Are priors about social ecology updated by information about the situation or the
person?. Perceptions of relational mobility are based on a huge database of experiences in a
local social ecology—sometimes a lifetime’s worth. For this reason, we proposed that relational
mobility serves as an estimate of the prior probability that others in one’s social ecology can
exercise partner choice. It is a best guess before you learn what your partner is like—the situa-
tion participants faced in round 1.
If relational mobility in your social ecology is used to estimate a partner’s outside options
when you know nothing else about that person, then its effect on cooperative motivations
should be reduced (or eliminated) by data about that specific person’s value as a cooperative
partner—to yourself and others. The evidence indicates that participants in both societies
updated this prior based on first-hand knowledge of their partner’s willingness to cooperate
and reluctance to punish. Once participants had experienced how their partner behaved in
round 1, relational mobility no longer predicted how much they trusted, reciprocated, or pun-
ished in round 2, in either the US or Japan. The behavior of the sham partner in round 1 (and,
of course, in round 2) did predict their responses. The only behavior that relational mobility
continued to influence was antisocial punishment. The belief others in your social ecology can
easily switch partners tempered—but did not eliminate—antisocial punishment. (See S5
Appendix.)
The results suggest that estimates of partner choice based on social ecology are updated
based on properties of the person with whom one is interacting. But are these estimates
updated in response to cues about a temporary situation one is facing—ones unrelated to the
partner’s value as a cooperator? It is not clear that they should be.
Delton et al. [35] examined the evolution of motivations to cooperate in Bayesian agents
who knew the base rate of one-shot interactions in their population and updated this prior
based on a cue about the immediate situation they were facing. The cue reflected the probabil-
ity that they would never interact again with their current partner. These Bayesian agents
evolved a strong disposition to cooperate even when they rationally believed the interaction was
one-shot. Selection favored agents who behaved as if they would repeatedly interact with their
current partner even when they knew this was unlikely. Agent-based models also show that
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 20 / 28
meeting a new individual once was a good cue that you will meet them again in ancestral social
ecologies [64]. Every participant in our study was exposed to this ancestrally-reliable cue to a
shadow of the future: They interacted with their partner for two rounds.
We did, however, provide a verbal cue relevant to partner choice in the temporary situation
that they were facing. Half the participants were told they would be interacting with the same
partner in every round (i.e., they were engaged in a repeated interaction with this person). The
other half were told they could change partners after two rounds (i.e., their current partner can
refuse to interact with them repeatedly). If this verbal cue is used to (temporarily) update their
prior probability that a newly encountered person can exercise partner choice, their motiva-
tions to cooperate or punish might shift in response.
There was little evidence that participants in round 1 used this situational cue to update a
prior that was based on their social ecology. Being told whether they would have the opportu-
nity to switch partners had no effect on how much participants punished defections by their
partner: Higher relational mobility in their local social ecology predicted less punishment,
regardless of condition or society. The cue did have an effect on how much American partici-
pants reciprocated their partner’s trust, however. Although average levels of reciprocation
were similar in both conditions, higher relational mobility predicted more reciprocation when
Americans were told they and their partner could part ways after two rounds, but not when
they were told that all of their interactions would be with the same partner.
Japanese participants did not respond to this cue at all: Their estimates of relational mobil-
ity predicted more reciprocation (and less punishment) to the same extent in both conditions.
That is, there was no evidence that people in Japan updated their prior hypothesis about rela-
tional mobility based on the situational cue we provided. If they did, the change was too small
to influence their willingness to reciprocate or punish.
If this result generalizes to other cues about a temporary situation, it suggests that the bene-
fits of opportunistic behavior in the short term were generally outweighed by the risk of losing
a valuable, long-term cooperative partner.
4.2 What is the function of punishment in dyadic reciprocal cooperation?
What, if anything, is the adaptive function of motivations to pay a cost to punish a defecting
partner? This was not a rare response: Of participants who were trusters in round 1, 44% pun-
ished when the responder defected. It is usually assumed that the function of punishing defec-
tors is to elicit more cooperation from them in the future—especially when they do not have
the option to change partners.
People who believe others in their social ecology have fewer options to switch partners did
pay more to punish defectors: Low relational mobility scores predicted paying more to punish.
But there was no evidence that punishment succeeded in eliciting greater cooperation from
participants. Quite the contrary: Participants who were punished for returning 0–40% in
round 1 did not respond by sending more points as truster in round 2. Indeed, they returned
fewer points as truster (β= -.22, p= .0002), and this effect was particularly pronounced for
those who had provided a positive payoff by returning 40% in round 1, β= -.41, p= .0001 (vs.
β= -.12, p= .099 for those who provided a negative payoff in round 1; see S5 Appendix). More-
over, those who were punished in round 1 were more likely to retaliate by punishing their part-
ner in round 2 (S5 Appendix; for similar results, see [65,66]).
Not only did punishment fail to elicit more cooperation from punished partners, but it also
drove them away. When partner switching was possible, having been punished was one of the
biggest independent predictors of wanting to change partners. Driving away defectors might
be a function of punishment, of course—when they were not punished, ~70% of people who
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 21 / 28
returned 0–40% wanted to remain with their accommodating partner (~68% of those who
returned 0–30%; ~71% of those returning 40%). Although participants in this study could pre-
vent future interactions at lower cost by simply deciding to switch after round 2, avoiding
unrewarding partners may be more difficult in real life, especially when they want to continue
cooperating with you.
Krasnow et al. [57] suggest that punishing defection signals a willingness to continue coop-
erating with your current partner, but on more favorable terms. Using a paradigm similar to
the TGP, they found that participants who punished a defecting partner in the first round were
11 times more likely to cooperate than defect in the second one (switching was not an option).
This pattern was not apparent in our study: Participants who punished a defecting partner did
not return more in round 2 than those who did not (39.28% vs. 35.18%, t(226.99) = 1.41, p=
.160), and they were not more likely to want to remain with their partner—indeed, the more
points participants paid to punish the partner, the more—although slightly—they wanted to
switch (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = [1.01, 1.03]). (Note, however, that a participant’s decision to stay
did not ensure a continuing interaction in our study; the partner also had the option to leave,
and punished ones were likely to do so.)
Our results showing that retaliatory punishment was common—~45% of those who were
punished in round 1 retaliated in round 2—suggest an alternative explanation. In Krasnow
et al. [57], participants who punished defectors in round 1 may have cooperated in round 2 to
avoid (very costly) retaliatory punishment by their partner. Those who did not punish partners
who succumbed to the temptation to cheat in round 1 may have assumed their partner would
“reciprocate” by not punishing when them when they did the same in round 2.
Motivations to punish did not reflect the participant’s own commitment to stay in the rela-
tionship, but they were up-regulated by estimates that partners might have few outside options:
Lower relational mobility in one’s social ecology did predict amount paid to punish defectors.
The results are consistent with the hypothesis that motivations to punish evolved to deter bad
treatment in the future by partners who do not seem to value your welfare [67]. Defecting now
may be a reliable cue that this partner does not value your welfare sufficiently, and punishment
was overwhelmingly directed at defectors. In ancestral social ecologies, partners who part ways
now may nevertheless have to cooperate again in the future [64,67,68]. Punishment may have
evolved as a warning, to deter bad treatment by defectors who may darken your door in the
future.
4.3 Micro and macro effects of social ecology
We measured two variables regarding participants’ real-life social ecology of partner choice.
First, we measured participants’ perceptions of their partner choice ecology with the relational
mobility scale [50]. Second, we recruited participants from two societies in which average rela-
tional mobility scores are typically high (US) versus low (Japan). This lets us see whether
behavior at the individual level scales up to explain differences between nations.
Within each society, the motivations of individuals were calibrated by their perceptions of
other people’s relational mobility: the number of opportunities they believe that others have to
form new relationships. Moreover, the pattern of calibration was universal: Within each soci-
ety, higher relational mobility scores predicted more reciprocation and less punishment. Indi-
vidual-level effects tracked individual perceptions of the local social ecology.
What about group-level differences? The concept of relational mobility was built from
Yamagishi’s seminal work on general trust: a cognitive bias to assume that newly encountered
people will treat you with benevolence rather than exploitation [69,70]. General trust varies
across nations; scores on the standard survey measure are higher in the US than Japan, for
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 22 / 28
example. Where general trust is higher, people are more willing to risk cooperating with
strangers who could, if untrustworthy, profit at their expense. The benefit of trusting strangers
is that it allows people to discover better cooperative partners, giving them more outside
options. The resulting increase relational mobility then tempers the risk of trusting strangers:
The threat that a good partner will leave for a better outside option can deter exploitive behav-
ior and increase benevolence.
With this in mind, we compared average behavior in the US and Japan. As in other studies,
perceptions of relational mobility were higher in the US than Japan (RM others: 4.12 vs. 3.57, t
(1028.2) = 13.76, p= 10
16
;RM self: 4.20 vs. 3.37, t(1030.8) = 18.71, p= 10
16
). That is, the aver-
age American believes others have more outside options than the average person from Japan
does. Moreover, as Yamagishi’s view of general trust predicts, when participants had no prior
experiences with their partners, American trusters risked more points on a stranger than Japa-
nese participants did (Trust: 59 vs. 50.6, t(502.55) = 2.9, p= .004). And trusting strangers usu-
ally paid off: Most responders delivered a positive payoff in both societies (US 67%, JP 76%).
Did the perception that others have more outside options lead the average American to
reciprocate more and punish less than the average person from Japan? No. Not only did Amer-
icans return less, on average, than Japanese participants, but more of them exploited their part-
ner’s trust by delivering a negative payoff (US 33% vs. JP 24%). Americans were also more
punitive, not less: They paid more to punish their partners, even when controlling for all other
factors (including whether their partner defected). And, despite less reciprocation and more
punishment at the macro-level, Americans were more likely to stay with their partner than
Japanese participants (all else equal).
Within each society, individual differences in reciprocation and punishment were associ-
ated with individual differences in perceptions of relational mobility, but this did not translate
into group-level differences between the US and Japan. Assuming that individual differences
fully explain group-level differences is called the ecological fallacy [7173]. The data clearly
show that the micro-level effect of individuals’ perceptions of relational mobility and the
macro-level effect of society were independent of one another. The individual-level psycholog-
ical calibrations and the group-level differences between nations coexist, rather than one pro-
ducing the other.
Features of the social ecology other than relational mobility could be responsible for the dif-
ferences in group-level calibrations between the US and Japan (see e.g., [56,74]). That Japanese
participants were less punitive than Americans is contrary to findings that Japan (or East
Asian countries in general) has “tighter” norms than the US which, when broken, elicit great
censure [75,76], but perhaps consistent with studies showing greater motivations to avoid
rejection in people in Japan than the US [74]. Our data cannot speak to these explanations of
the group-level differences we found.
4.4 Limitations and future directions
Motivations responded when participants learned how the partner treats them, but the partner
switching instructions influenced Americans only (and not much at that). This could be
because repeated interactions—with interruptions between—were common ancestrally, mak-
ing long-run estimates of social ecology a more reliable basis for calibration than cues about a
fleeting situation. The other possibility is that a cue delivered online was too divorced from
real life, devoid of psychophysical cues typical of social isolation versus community. Future
studies might enhance the salience of the situational cue, perhaps by including visual displays
showing many versus few alternative partners (avatars or faces), or by giving participants prior
experiences of a desirable partner leaving for a better one or an unrewarding partner staying.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 23 / 28
A person with fewer outside options than others in their local ecology may feel they need to
reciprocate more and punish less. We did adapt the relational mobility scale to ask about the self;
although self and other scores were correlated r(515) = .60 (p= 10
16
) in the US and r(516) = .50
(p= 10
16
) in Japan, we calculated whether RM self <RM other for each participant. In Japan, 67%
of participants felt their outside options were worse than those of other people, compared to 44% in
the US. And, in both countries, those who felt they have fewer outside options returned more points
than those who felt their options were better than or equal to others, but the difference in points
returned was not significant. A better measure in the future might be to ask, for each RM question,
whether people feel they have more, the same, or fewer options than others in their society.
Dyadic cooperation may be affected by other aspects of the social ecology as well, such as
how likely others will be to take advantage of you [69]. Punishment as a deterrent may be up-
regulated in ecologies where the probability of being exploited are higher, as they were in the
US in this study. Perceptions of these probabilities would be a fruitful variable to assess.
Lastly, our participants were from either the US or Japan, two populous, large-scale indus-
trialized societies. Objectively speaking, most people in these countries are free to associate
with anyone they like, and they are surrounded by strangers, each of whom is a potential new
partner. It would be fruitful to extend the current line of research to smaller societies in which
the actual—not only perceived—possibility of partner choice is more limited.
5 Conclusions
We demonstrate that estimates of partner choice in one’s local social ecology systematically
regulate motivations to reciprocate, defect, and punish in dyadic cooperative interactions. The
more opportunities participants thought others have to form new relationships, the more they
reciprocated and the less they punished. The results suggest that the function of these motiva-
tional calibrations is to retain valuable cooperative partners when they have the option to
leave: When given the choice, participants preferred to stay with partners who reciprocated
and leave partners who punished them. The results support the hypothesis that motivational
systems are designed to use estimates of the degree of partner choice in one’s local social ecol-
ogy to functionally regulate cooperative behavior.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Instructions given to participants.
(DOCX)
S2 Appendix. Raw data.
(XLSX)
S3 Appendix. Full regression models.
(DOCX)
S4 Appendix. Full logistic regression models for the decision to switch partners given dif-
ferent reciprocation rates by the participant.
(DOCX)
S5 Appendix. Regression models for behaviors in round 2.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Sakura Arai, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides.
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 24 / 28
Data curation: Sakura Arai.
Formal analysis: Sakura Arai.
Funding acquisition: Sakura Arai, Leda Cosmides.
Investigation: Sakura Arai.
Methodology: Sakura Arai, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides.
Project administration: Sakura Arai.
Resources: Sakura Arai, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides.
Software: Sakura Arai.
Supervision: Sakura Arai, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides.
Validation: Sakura Arai.
Visualization: Sakura Arai, Leda Cosmides.
Writing original draft: Sakura Arai.
Writing review & editing: Sakura Arai, Leda Cosmides.
References
1. Trivers RL. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol. 1971; 46: 35–57.
2. Axelrod R, Hamilton WD. The evolution of cooperation. Science. 1981; 211: 1390–1396. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.7466396 PMID: 7466396
3. Hammerstein P, Noe
¨R. Biological trade and markets. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371. https://
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0101 PMID: 26729940
4. Schweinfurth MK, Taborsky M. Rats play tit-for-tat instead of integrating social experience over multiple
interactions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2020;287. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2423 PMID: 31937222
5. Dugatkin LA, Alfieri M. Tit-For-Tat in guppies (Poecilia reticulata): the relative nature of cooperation and
defection during predator inspection. Evol Ecol. 1991; 5: 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02214234
6. Bshary R, Grutter AS. Asymmetric cheating opportunities and partner control in a cleaner fish mutual-
ism. Anim Behav. 2002; 63: 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1937
7. Schuessler R. Exit Threats and Cooperation under Anonymity. J Conflict Resolut. 1989; 33: 728–749.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002789033004007
8. Hayashi N. From tit-for-tat to out-for-tat. Scociological Theory and Methods. 1993; 8: 19–32.
9. Aktipis CA. Know when to walk away: Contingent movement and the evolution of cooperation. J Theor
Biol. 2004; 231: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.020 PMID: 15380389
10. Joyce D, Kennison J, Densmore O, Guerin S, Barr S, Charles E, et al. My way or the highway: A more
naturalistic model of altruism tested in an iterative prisoners’ dilemma. Jasss. 2006; 9: 79–92.
11. Izquierdo SS, Izquierdo LR, Vega-Redondo F. The option to leave: Conditional dissociation in the evolu-
tion of cooperation. J Theor Biol. 2010; 267: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.07.039 PMID:
20688083
12. Li WJ, Jiang LL, Perc M. A limited mobility of minorities facilitates cooperation in social dilemmas. Appl
Math Comput. 2021;391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2020.125705
13. Axelrod R. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books; 1984.
14. Yamagishi T, Hayashi N, Jin N. Prisoner’s dilemma networks: Selection strategy versus action strategy.
In: Schulz U, Albers W, Mueller U, editors. Social Dilemmas and Cooperation. Berlin: Springer-Verlag;
1994. pp. 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78860-4
15. Bull JJ, Rice WR. Distinguishing mechanisms for the evolution of co-operation. J Theor Biol. 1991; 149:
63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80072-4 PMID: 1881147
16. Noe
¨R. A veto game played by baboons: a challenge to the use of the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a para-
digm for reciprocity and cooperation. Anim Behav. 1990; 39: 78–90.
17. Leimar O, Hammerstein P. Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.
2001; 268: 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1573 PMID: 11321064
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 25 / 28
18. Ohtsuki H, Iwasa Y. The leading eight: Social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciproc-
ity. J Theor Biol. 2006; 239: 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.008 PMID: 16174521
19. Nowak MA, Sigmund K. Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature. 1998; 393: 573–577.
https://doi.org/10.1038/31225 PMID: 9634232
20. Bshary R, Grutter AS. Experimental evidence that partner choice is a driving force in the payoff distribu-
tion among cooperators or mutualists: The cleaner fish case. Ecol Lett. 2002; 5: 130–136. https://doi.
org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00295.x
21. Simms EL, Taylor DL, Povich J, Shefferson RP, Sachs JL, Urbina M, et al. An empirical test of partner
choice mechanisms in a wild legume-rhizobium interaction. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006; 273: 77–81.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3292 PMID: 16519238
22. Barclay P, Willer R. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.
2007; 274: 749–753. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0209 PMID: 17255001
23. Barclay P, Raihani N. Partner choice versus punishment in human Prisoner’s Dilemmas. Evol Hum
Behav. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.12.004
24. Baumard N, Andre
´J-BB, Sperber D. A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by
partner choice. Behav Brain Sci. 2013; 36: 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002202 PMID:
23445574
25. Martin JW, Cushman F. To punish or to leave: Distinct cognitive processes underlie partner control and
partner choice behaviors. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0125193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0125193 PMID: 25915550
26. Roberts G. Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.
1998; 265: 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0312
27. Barclay P. Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evol Hum Behav.
2013; 34: 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.02.002
28. Quillien T. Evolution of conditional and unconditional commitment. J Theor Biol. 2020; 492: 110204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110204 PMID: 32084497
29. Eisenbruch AB, Grillot RL, Maestripieri D, Roney JR. Evidence of partner choice heuristics in a one-
shot bargaining game. Evol Hum Behav. 2016; 37: 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.
2016.04.002
30. Bradley A, Lawrence C, Ferguson E. Does observability affect prosociality? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.
2018;285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0116 PMID: 29593114
31. Barclay P. Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evol
Hum Behav. 2004; 25: 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.002
32. Sylwester K, Roberts G. Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic
games. Biol Lett. 2010; 6: 659–662. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2010.0209 PMID: 20410026
33. Sylwester K, Roberts G. Reputation-based partner choice is an effective alternative to indirect reciproc-
ity in solving social dilemmas. Evol Hum Behav. 2013; 34: 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2012.11.009
34. Delton AW, Cosmides L, Guemo M, Robertson TE, Tooby J. The Psychosemantics of Free Riding: Dis-
secting the Architecture of Moral Concept. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012; 102: 1252–1270. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0027026 PMID: 22268815
35. Delton AW, Krasnow MM, Cosmides L, Tooby J. Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can
explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011; 108: 13335–13340.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102131108 PMID: 21788489
36. Raihani NJ, Bshary R. The reputation of punishers. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015; 30: 98–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.003 PMID: 25577128
37. Horita Y. Punishers May Be Chosen as Providers But Not as Recipients. Lett Evol Behav Sci. 2010; 1:
6–9. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2010.2
38. Ozono H, Watabe M. Reputational benefit of punishment: Comparison among the punisher, rewarder,
and non-sanctioner. Lett Evol Behav Sci. 2012; 3: 21–24. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2012.22
39. Dhaliwal N, Patil I, Cushman F. Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2021; 164: 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2021.01.003
40. Przepiorka W, Liebe U. Generosity is a sign of trustworthiness-the punishment of selfishness is not.
Evol Hum Behav. 2016; 37: 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.12.003
41. Sugiyama LS. Illness, Injury, and Disability among Shiwiar Forager-Horticulturalists: Implications of
Health-Risk Buffering for the Evolution of Human Life History. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004; 123: 371–
389. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.10325 PMID: 15022365
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 26 / 28
42. Gurven M, Hill K, Kaplan H, Hurtado A, Lyles R. Food transfers among Hiwi foragers of Venezuela:
Tests of reciprocity. Hum Ecol. 2000; 28: 171–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007067919982
43. Bliege Bird R, Scelza B, Bird DW, Smith EA. The hierarchy of virtue: mutualism, altruism and signaling
in Martu women’s cooperative hunting. Evol Hum Behav. 2012; 33: 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2011.05.007
44. Kelly RL. Colonization of New Land by Hunter-Gatherers: Expectations and Implications Based on Eth-
nographic Data. In: Rockman M, Steele J, editors. The Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The
Archaeology of Adaptation. Routledge; 2003. pp. 44–58.
45. Ziegler M, Simon MH, Hall IR, Barker S, Stringer C, Zahn R. Development of Middle Stone Age innova-
tion linked to rapid climate change. Nat Commun. 2013; 4: 1905. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2897
PMID: 23695699
46. Pietraszewski D, Curry OS, Petersen MB, Cosmides L, Tooby J. Constituents of political cognition:
Race, party politics, and the alliance detection system. Cognition. 2015; 140: 24–39. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cognition.2015.03.007 PMID: 25867997
47. Eisenbruch AB, Grillot RL, Roney JR. Why Be Generous? Tests of the Partner Choice and Threat Pre-
mium Models of Resource Division. Adapt Hum Behav Physiol. 2019; 5: 274–296. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40750-019-00117-0
48. Debove S, Andre J-B, Baumard N, Andre
´J-B, Baumard N, Andre J-B, et al. Partner choice creates fair-
ness in humans. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2015; 282: 20150392–20150392. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.
2015.0392 PMID: 25972467
49. Yamagishi T, Jin N, Kiyonari T. Bounded Generalized Reciprocity: Ingroup boasting and ingroup favor-
ism. Adv Gr Process. 1999; 16: 161–197.
50. Yuki M, Schug J, Horikawa H, Takemura K, Sato K, Yokota K, et al. Development of a scale to measure
perceptions of relational mobility in society. CERSS Work Pap 75, Cent Exp Res Soc Sci Hokkaido
Univ. 2007; 4–6.
51. Thomson R, Yuki M, Talhelm T, Schug J, Kito M, Ayanian AH, et al. Relational mobility predicts social
behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018; 115:
7521–7526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713191115 PMID: 29959208
52. Yuki M, Schug J. Psychological consequences of relational mobility. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020; 32: 129–
132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.029 PMID: 31491705
53. Oishi S, Schug J, Yuki M, Axt J. The psychology of residential and relational mobilities. In: Gelfand M,
Chiu C, Hong Y, editors. Handbook of Advances in Culture and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press; 2015. pp. 221–272.
54. Schug J, Yuki M, Maddux W. Relational Mobility Explains Between- and Within-Culture Differences in
Self-Disclosure to Close Friends. Psychol Sci. 2010; 21: 1471–1478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797610382786 PMID: 20817913
55. Komiya A, Ohtsubo Y, Nakanishi D, Oishi S. Gift-giving in romantic couples serves as a commitment
signal: Relational mobility is associated with more frequent gift-giving. Evol Hum Behav. 2019; 40: 160–
166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.10.003
56. Yamagishi T, Hashimoto H, Schug J. Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific
behavior. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19: 579–584. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x PMID:
18578848
57. Krasnow MM, Cosmides L, Pedersen EJ, Tooby J. What Are Punishment and Reputation for? PLoS
One. 2012; 7: e45662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045662 PMID: 23049833
58. Herrmann B, Tho
¨ni C, Ga
¨chter S. Antisocial punishment across societies. Science. 2008. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1153808 PMID: 18323447
59. Shinada M, Yamagishi T, Ohmura Y. False friends are worse than bitter enemies: “Altruistic” punish-
ment of in-group members. Evol Hum Behav. 2004; 25: 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2004.08.001
60. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2020. Avail-
able: https://www.r-project.org/
61. Robinson C, Schumacker R. Interaction effects: centering, variance inflation factor, and interpretation
issues. Mult Linear Regres Viewpoints. 2009; 35: 6–11.
62. Petersen MB, Sell A, Tooby J, Cosmides L. To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intui-
tions about modern criminal justice. Evol Hum Behav. 2012; 33: 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2012.05.003 PMID: 23412662
63. Jussim L. Social perception and social reality: A reflection-construction model. Psychol Rev. 1991; 98:
54–73. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.98.1.54
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 27 / 28
64. Krasnow MM, Delton AW, Tooby J, Cosmides L. Meeting now suggests we will meet again: Implications
for debates on the evolution of cooperation. Sci Rep. 2013; 3: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01747
PMID: 23624437
65. Bone JE, Wallace B, Bshary R, Raihani NJ. The effect of power asymmetries on cooperation and pun-
ishment in a prisoner’s dilemma game. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0117183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0117183 PMID: 25629971
66. Bone JE, Wallace B, Bshary R, Raihani NJ. Power asymmetries and punishment in a prisoner’s
dilemma with variable cooperative investment. PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0155773. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0155773 PMID: 27191958
67. Krasnow MM, Delton AW, Cosmides L, Tooby J. Looking Under the Hood of Third-Party Punishment
Reveals Design for Personal Benefit. Psychol Sci. 2016; 27: 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797615624469 PMID: 26851057
68. Smith KM, Larroucau T, Mabulla IA, Apicella CL. Hunter-Gatherers Maintain Assortativity in Coopera-
tion despite High Levels of Residential Change and Mixing. Curr Biol. 2018; 3152–3157. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cub.2018.07.064 PMID: 30245106
69. Yamagishi T. Trust: the evolutionary game of mind and society. New York: Springer; 2011.
70. Schug J, Yuki M, Horikawa H, Takemura K. Similarity attraction and actually selecting similar others:
How cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarity in Japan and the
USA. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2009; 12: 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01277.x
71. Thorndike EL. On the Fallacy of Imputing the Correlations Found for Groups to the Individuals or
Smaller Groups Composing Them. Am J Psychol. 1939; 52: 122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416673
72. Pollet T V., Tybur JM, Frankenhuis WE, Rickard IJ. What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about
human nature? Hum Nat. 2014; 25: 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3 PMID:
25092392
73. Brewer P, Venaik S. The Ecological Fallacy in National Culture Research. Organ Stud. 2014; 35: 1063–
1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613517602
74. Hashimoto H, Yamagishi T. Duality of independence and interdependence: An adaptationist perspec-
tive. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2016; 19: 286–297.
75. Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, Leslie LM, Lun J, Lim BC, et al. Differences between tight and loose cul-
tures: A 33-nation study. Science. 2011; 332: 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
PMID: 21617077
76. Wang CS, Leung AK -y. The Cultural Dynamics of Rewarding Honesty and Punishing Deception. Per-
sonal Soc Psychol Bull. 2010; 36: 1529–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385921 PMID:
20947774
PLOS ONE
Motivations to reciprocate and punish are calibrated by partner choice
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267153 April 19, 2022 28 / 28