Cooperation in rats playing the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game

Wood, Ruth I.; Kim, Jessica Y.; Li, Grace R.

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.01.010

Cited by 50 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2C). However, in our recent study of direct reciprocity (Wood et al, 2016), male rats responded for their cagemate on 47% of trials. The relatively high Responder response rate in the FV block could reflect that rats previously received 1 pellet for an Responder response on the constant lever in the FC block.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…As in Wood et al (2016), operant chambers were divided in half by a mesh screen. Each side of the chamber was equipped with two retractable levers and stimulus lights flanking a food trough connected to a pellet dispenser (Fig.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initially, rats were trained individually in reward discrimination, as in Wood et al (2016). Stimulus lights above each lever were illuminated for 2 seconds before the levers were inserted.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (IPD) tests participants in repeated multiple rounds with the same partners (Raihani and Bshary, 2011), to allow for development and expression of cooperative responses. We recently used an operant model of IPD to test cooperation in pairs of rats (Wood et al, 2016). In our study, cooperative responses varied with food availability, and among pairs of rats.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Male rats play a repeated donation game

Wood

2017

Physiology & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While previous studies have demonstrated direct and generalized reciprocity in female Norway rats (Rutte and Taborsky, 2008), the present study determined if unrelated male laboratory rats respond on behalf of a partner in an iterated sequential game. Pairs of rats worked for food reward in an operant chamber, where participants alternated as Donor and Responder in successive trials. In each trial, the Donor chose between variable and constant reward levers, where the constant reward lever delivered 1 pellet, and the variable reward lever triggered insertion of Responder lever(s); the Donor received 2 pellets when the Responder made any response. In forced-choice constant (FC) trials, the Responder also received 1 pellet for responding on the constant reward lever. In forced-choice variable (FV) trials, the Responder received no pellets for responding on the variable reward lever. In free-choice (FR) trials, the Responder chose between constant (1 pellet) and variable reward levers (0 pellets). With their cagemate, rats earned 61.4±2.0 pellets (64.0±2.1% of 96 possible pellets). As Donor in FC trials, rats preferred the variable reward lever, and the Responder responded frequently. In FV trials, Donor preference for the variable reward lever declined as Responder lever responses decreased. In FR trials, rats alternated responding on variable and constant reward levers as Donor and Responder, respectively. When paired with a new partner, there was no effect on Donor responses, but responses by the Responder decreased in the FV block. Similar effects were observed when paired with a maximally-cooperative stooge. Importantly, rats did not adjust their behavior as Donor to receive more pellets. Results suggest that unrelated male rats will work on behalf of a partner, and that their behavior is sensitive to familiarity, and to cooperative responses by their partner.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Male rats play a repeated donation game

Wood

2017

Physiology & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG) in particular has become a widely used model for investigating cooperation and cheating, with cooperation often emerging as a robust outcome in evolving populations1415161718. The standard prisoner’s dilemma game describes the competition between cooperation and defection1920212223. Of greater interest is what happens when individual gain and loss depend heavily on the actions of others24.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The co-evolution of networks and prisoner’s dilemma game by considering sensitivity and visibility

Han

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategies adopted by individuals in a social network significantly impact the network, and they strongly affect relationships between individuals in the network. Links between individuals also heavily influence their levels of cooperation. Taking into account the evolution of each individual’s connection, we explore how sensitivity and visibility affect the prisoner’s dilemma game. The so-called ‘sensitivity’ and ‘visibility’ respectively present one’s self-protection consciousness and the ability of gaining information. We find that at moderate levels of player sensitivity cooperative behavior increases, but that at high levels it is inhibited. We also find that the heterogeneity of the weight of individuals at the end of the game is higher when sensitivity and visibility are increased, but that the successful-defection-payoff has less impact on the weight of individuals and on the relationship between the heterogeneity of the weight of individuals and the density of cooperators. This framework can be used to clarify the interaction mechanism between the micro-level of individual behavior and the macro-level of individual co-evolutionary processes.

show abstract

Do female Norway rats form social bonds?

Schweinfurth

Neuenschwander

Engqvist

et al. 2017

Behav Ecol Sociobiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social bonds reflect specific and enduring relationships among conspecifics. In some group living animals they have been found to generate immediate and long-term fitness benefits. It is currently unclear how important and how widespread social bonds are in animals other than primates. It has been hypothesized that social bonds may help establishing stable levels of reciprocal cooperation. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) reciprocate received help to an unrelated social partner. It is hitherto unknown, however, whether this cooperative behaviour is based on the establishment of social bonds among involved individuals. Norway rats live in social groups that can be very large, hence without bonds it may be difficult to keep track of other individuals and their previous behaviour, which is a precondition for generating evolutionarily stable levels of cooperation based on direct reciprocity. Here we tested whether wild-type female rats form bonds among each other, which are stable both over time and across different contexts. In addition, we scrutinized the potential influence of social rank on the establishment of bonds. Despite the fact that the hierarchy structure within groups remained stable over the study period, no stable social bonds were formed between group members. Apparently, social information from consecutive encounters with the same social partner is not accumulated. The lack of long-term social bonds might explain why rats base their decisions to cooperate primarily on the last encounter with a social partner, which may differ from other animals where cooperation is based on the existence of long-term social bonds.

show abstract

Cooperation in rats playing the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma game

Cited by 50 publications

References 34 publications

Male rats play a repeated donation game

Male rats play a repeated donation game

The co-evolution of networks and prisoner’s dilemma game by considering sensitivity and visibility

Do female Norway rats form social bonds?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About