Constraints on cooperation shape hierarchical versus distributed structure in human groups.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 01 2023
20 01 2023
Historique:
received:
25
05
2022
accepted:
31
10
2022
entrez:
20
1
2023
pubmed:
21
1
2023
medline:
25
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Some human groups are organized hierarchically and some are distributed. Both types of groups occur in economic, political, and military domains, but it is unclear why hierarchical organizations are favored in certain contexts and distributed organizations are favored in others. I propose that these different organizational structures can be explained by human groups having different constraints on their ability to foster cooperation within the group. Human within-group cooperation is often maintained by monitoring and punishment. In hierarchical groups, monitoring and punishment are organized into tree-like command-and-control structures with supervisors responsible for monitoring the cooperation of their subordinates and punishing non-cooperators. By contrast, in distributed groups, monitoring is diffuse and punishment is collective. I propose that the organization of cooperative human groups is constrained by the costs of monitoring and punishment. I formalize this hypothesis with a model where individuals in a group cooperate to produce public goods while embedded in a network of monitoring and punishment responsibilities. I show that, when punishment costs are high and monitoring costs are low, socially-optimal monitoring and punishment networks are distributed. The size of these distributed networks is constrained by monitoring costs. However, when punishment costs are low, socially-optimal networks are hierarchical. Monitoring costs do not constrain the size of hierarchical networks but determine how many levels of supervision are required to foster cooperation in the hierarchical group. These results may explain the increasingly large and hierarchical groups throughout much of human history. They also suggest that the recent emergence of large-scale distributed organizations has been possible because new technologies, like the internet, have made monitoring costs extremely low.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36670128
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23454-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-23454-9
pmc: PMC9860035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1160Informations de copyright
© 2023. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Behav Brain Sci. 2014 Jun;37(3):280-1
pubmed: 24970427
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Mar 18;100(6):3531-5
pubmed: 12631700
Science. 1970 Aug 21;169(3947):733-8
pubmed: 17820299
Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):137-40
pubmed: 11805825
Nature. 2010 Aug 12;466(7308):861-3
pubmed: 20631710
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Mar 7;275(1634):587-90
pubmed: 18089534
Science. 2010 Apr 30;328(5978):617-20
pubmed: 20431013
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 12;108(28):11375-80
pubmed: 21670285
Behav Brain Sci. 2016 Jan;39:e30
pubmed: 25347943
J Theor Biol. 2010 Aug 21;265(4):633-46
pubmed: 20665973
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Sep 22;281(1791):20141349
pubmed: 25100704
Nat Commun. 2014 Mar 26;5:3526
pubmed: 24667443
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Jun 26;280(1765):20131151
pubmed: 23804623
Sci Rep. 2012;2:458
pubmed: 22701161
Phys Rev Lett. 2001 Apr 2;86(14):3196-9
pubmed: 11290141
Behav Brain Sci. 2014 Jun;37(3):243-54
pubmed: 24970399
Evol Anthropol. 2015 Mar-Apr;24(2):50-61
pubmed: 25914359
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14;100(21):12516-21
pubmed: 14528009
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Nov 18;111(46):16425-30
pubmed: 25349400
Science. 2006 Jun 23;312(5781):1767-70
pubmed: 16794075
Nature. 2005 Dec 15;438(7070):900-1
pubmed: 16355180