Evolution of empathetic moral evaluation

Abstract

Social norms can promote cooperation by assigning reputations to individuals based on their past actions. A good reputation indicates that an individual is likely to reciprocate. A large body of research has established norms of moral assessment that promote cooperation, assuming reputations are objective. But without a centralized institution to provide objective evaluation, opinions about an individual’s reputation may differ across a population. In this setting we study the role of empathy–the capacity to form moral evaluations from another person’s perspective. We show that empathy tends to foster cooperation by reducing the rate of unjustified defection. The norms of moral evaluation previously considered most socially beneficial depend on high levels of empathy, whereas different norms maximize social welfare in populations incapable of empathy. Finally, we show that empathy itself can evolve through social contagion. We conclude that a capacity for empathy is a key component for sustaining cooperation in societies.

Emotion expressions shape human social norms and reputations

“…This is indirect reciprocity at work. Cooperation with strangers can, thus, emerge in one-shot interactions if information about strangers' past behavior is available and reliable ( Hilbe et al., 2018 ; Santos et al., 2018b ; Radzvilavicius et al., 2019 ; Szabolcs et al., 2016 ; Uchida, 2010 ), even though the payoff-maximizing move would be to defect. When combined with particular social norms ( Ohtsuki and Iwasa, 2006 ), defining how individuals should behave and how reputations should be updated, indirect reciprocity can effectively promote cooperation in a community.…”

“…Some experimental work indicates that these two forms of reciprocity can interact in important ways, with the effects of direct interaction often overriding the effects of reputation in time ( Molleman et al., 2013 ). This interplay, furthermore, may conflict with humans' cognitive capacity to reason on multiple (and, possibly, conflicting) sources of information through complex heuristics ( Feldman, 2000 ; Melamed et al., 2020 ; Radzvilavicius et al., 2019 ; Santos et al., 2018 , 2018b ). Also, actions and assessment of others' actions are often made in absence of complete information about the decision maker or recipient's reputations and motivation for past actions ( Feldman, 2000 ; Radzvilavicius et al., 2019 ; Uchida, 2010 ).…”

The dynamics of injunctive social norms

“…There is also 'false enforcement' (Centola et al, 2005) when people enforce unpopular norms to show that they have complied out of genuine conviction and not because of social pressure. People can also punish to remove the competitive advantage of the cheater (Gavrilets, 2012;Raihani & Bshary, 2019) or exhibit antisocial punishment, e.g. just out of spite or to achieve a competitive advantage over others (Raihani & Bshary, 2019).…”

A mathematical look at empathy

“…It is more likely that different people will be able to have different opinions about reputations, making it more difficult to maintain cooperation (Uchida, 2010; Okada et al, 2017; Hilbe et al, 2018). Now, in eLife, Arunas Radzvilavicius and Joshua Plotkin of University of Pennsylvania, working with Alexander Stewart of University of Houston, report the results of mathematical modelling that offer new insights into the effect of empathy on cooperation when there is no consensus about reputations (Radzvilavicius et al, 2019).…”

“…In this context, empathy is the ability of someone to change their opinion of a person based on what other people think of that person (Radzvilavicius et al, 2019). Let us return to the example of Alice and Bob (Figure 1): Alice has chosen not to cooperate with Bob because she believes he is a 'bad' guy.…”