Over the past two decades, researchers have thoroughly investigated cooperation within social dilemmas to address societal challenges. However, there has been limited interdisciplinary review of this field. This paper provides the first comprehensive analysis of 2,232 articles from 2003 to 2023 within this research domain, utilizing CiteSpace. Our analysis includes statistical, collaboration, co-citation, and keyword co-occurrence analyses to elucidate current trends, key contributors, themes, and emerging areas. The findings indicate that: (1) The publications have shown a rising trend, meaning cooperation topics in social dilemmas receive wide attention. (2) Cooperation in social dilemmas is a prominent and interdisciplinary topic characterized by strong collaboration among regions, authors, and journals. (3) Key topics include social value orientation, spatial public goods games, procedural fairness, and group cooperation. Additionally, emerging research trends may encompass evolutionary dynamics of cooperation, complex networks of social dilemmas, sex differences in cooperation, and climate change. (4) Future research should focus on interdisciplinary theoretical integration, the brain mechanisms of cooperation, emerging social dilemmas in the real world, and cross-cultural comparative studies. This study provides a reference for researchers to understand the theme and research hotspot of cooperation within social dilemmas.
Abd El-SalamS. M.El-SeidyE.Abdel-MalekA. R. (2023). Evaluating zero-determinant strategies' effects on cooperation and conflict resolution in repeated games. Chaos Solitons & Fractals, 174(8), 113779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113779
2.
AhnT. K.LoukasB.BatsaikhanM.Campos-OrtizF.PuttermanL.SutterM. (2018). Trust and communication in a property rights dilemma. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 149(1), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.009
3.
AksoyO. (2019). Crosscutting circles in a social dilemma: Effects of social identity and inequality on cooperation. Social Science Research, 82(1), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.04.009
4.
AlventosaA.AntonioniA.HernándezP. (2021). Pool punishment in public goods games: How do sanctioners? Incentives affect us?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 185(1), 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.03.004
5.
ArgüelloG. (2021). Large-scale collective action in the arctic ocean: The role of international organizations in climate governance [article; early access]. Ocean & Coastal Management, 211(11), 105706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105706
6.
AtwellP.NathanN. L. (2022). Channels for influence or maps of behavior? A field experiment on social networks and cooperation [article; early access]. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 696–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12586
7.
BallietD. (2010). Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709352443
8.
BallietD.MulderL. B.Van LangeP. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023489
9.
BallietD.ParksC.JoiremanJ. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040
10.
BarfussW.DongesJ. F.VasconcelosV. V.KurthsJ. U.LevinS. A. (2020). Caring for the future can turn tragedy into comedy for long-term collective action under risk of collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(23), 12915–12922. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916545117
11.
BrocknerJ.De CremerD.van den BosK.ChenY. R. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.11.001
12.
CaillierJ. G. (2020). Testing the influence of autocratic leadership, democratic leadership, and public service motivation on citizen ratings of an agency head's performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(4), 918–941. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1730919
13.
ChangC.KristensenN. P.Le NghiemT. P.TanC. L. Y.CarrascoL. R. (2021). Having a stake in the future and perceived population density influence intergenerational cooperation. Royal Society Open Science, 8(7), 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210206
14.
ChávezC. A.MurphyJ. J.QuezadaF. J.StranlundJ. K. (2023). The endogenous formation of common pool resource coalitions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 211(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2023.04.028
15.
ChenF.WuT.WangL. (2022a). Evolutionary dynamics of zero-determinant strategies in repeated multiplayer games. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 549(9), 111209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111209
ChengY.XueY. B.ChangM. (2020). Career choice as an extended spatial evolutionary public goods game. Chaos Solitons & Fractals, 137(9), 109856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109856
18.
ChessaM.LoiseauP. (2024). Enhancing voluntary contributions in a public goods economy via a minimum individual contribution level. Public Choice, 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-024-01165-1
19.
ChowdhuryS. N.KunduS.BanerjeeJ.PercM.GhoshD. (2021a). Eco-evolutionary dynamics of cooperation in the presence of policing. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 518(13), 110606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110606
20.
ChowdhuryS. N.KunduS.DuhM.PercM.GhoshD. (2020). Cooperation on interdependent networks by means of migration and stochastic imitation. Entropy, 22(4), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22040485
21.
ChowdhuryS. N.KunduS.PercM.GhoshD. (2021b). Complex evolutionary dynamics due to punishment and free space in ecological multi-games. Proceedings of the Royal Society a-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 477(2252), 28. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2021.0397
22.
ChugunovaM.LuhanW. J.NicklischA. (2020). When to leave carrots for sticks: On the evolution of sanctioning institutions in open communities. Economics Letters, 191(4), 109155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109155
23.
ColmanA. M.GoldN. (2018). Team reasoning: Solving the puzzle of coordination [Review]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1770–1783. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1399-0
24.
CressU.KimmerleJ. (2008). Endowment heterogeneity and identifiability in the information-exchange dilemma. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 862–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.02.022
25.
De CremerD. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005
26.
De CremerD.SedikidesC. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice [Review]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.010
27.
De CremerD.TylerT. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639
28.
De CremerD.van DijkE. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of identification level: A test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00009-4
29.
De CremerD.van KnippenbergD. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 858–866. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.858
30.
De CremerD.van KnippenbergD.van DijkE.van LeeuwenE. (2008). Cooperating if one's goals are collective-based: Social identification effects in social dilemmas as a function of goal transformation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1562–1579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00359.x
31.
De DreuC. K. W. (2012). Oxytocin modulates cooperation within and competition between groups: An integrative review and research agenda [Review]. Hormones and Behavior, 61(3), 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.12.009
32.
De DreuC. K. W.KretM. E. (2016). Oxytocin conditions intergroup relations through upregulated in-group empathy, cooperation, conformity, and defense [review]. Biological Psychiatry, 79(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.03.020
33.
de KwaadstenietE. W.RijkhoffS. A. M.van DijkE. (2013). Equality as a benchmark for third-party punishment and reward: The moderating role of uncertainty in social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.007
34.
DeQuero-NavarroB.BarakatK. A.ShultzC. J.Araque-PadillaR. A.Montero-SimoM. J. (2020). From conflict to cooperation: A macromarketing view of sustainable and inclusive development in Lebanon and the Middle East. Environmental Management, 66(2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01300-w
35.
DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA. (2019). A cross-national analysis of sex differences in prisoner's dilemma games. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12287
36.
DorroughA. R.GlöcknerA. (2021). Sex differences concerning prosocial behavior in social dilemmas are (partially) mediated by risk preferences but not social preferences an in-depth analysis across 10 countries. Social Psychology, 52(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000434
37.
DoyleJ. (2021). The effect of cultural trust on cooperation in two behavioral experiments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 84(3), 246–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/01902725211032134
38.
DuellD.MengelF.MohlinE.WeidenholzerS. (2023). Cooperation through collective punishment and participation [article; early access]. Political Science Research and Methods, 27. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2023.52
39.
EberleinB.NewmanA. L. (2008). Escaping the international governance dilemma? Incorporated transgovernmental networks in the European Union. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 21(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00384.x
40.
ElsenbroichC.PayetteN. (2020). Choosing to cooperate: Modelling public goods games with team reasoning. Journal of Choice Modelling, 34(15), 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2020.100203
41.
EmondsG.DeclerckC. H.BooneC.SeurinckR.AchtenR. (2014). Establishing cooperation in a mixed-motive social dilemma. An fMRI study investigating the role of social value orientation and dispositional trust. Social Neuroscience, 9(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2013.858080
42.
FarjamM.FailloM.Sprinkhuizen-KuyperI.HaselagerP. (2015). Punishment mechanisms and their effect on cooperation: A simulation study. Jasss-the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.2647
FehrE.SchurtenbergerI. (2018). Normative foundations of human cooperation [Review]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(7), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0385-5
45.
FischbacherU.GächterS. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 100(1), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.541
GächterS.RennerE. (2018). Leaders as role models and 'belief managers' in social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 154, 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.08.001
48.
GengY.MaimaituerxunM. (2022). Research progress of green marketing in sustainable consumption based on CiteSpace analysis. SAGE Open, 12(3), 215824402211198. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221119835
49.
GengY.WangR.WeiZ.ZhaiQ. (2021). Temporal-spatial measurement and prediction between air environment and inbound tourism: Case of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, 125486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125486
50.
GengY.ZhuR.MaimaituerxunM. (2022). Bibliometric review of carbon neutrality with CiteSpace: Evolution, trends, and framework. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(51), 76668–76686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23283-3
51.
GengY.ChenL.LiJ.IqbalK. (2023a). Higher education and digital Economy: Analysis of their coupling coordination with the Yangtze River economic Belt in China as the example. Ecological Indicators, 154(110510), 110510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110510
52.
GengY.ZhangN.ZhuR. (2023b). Research progress analysis of sustainable smart grid based on CiteSpace. Energy Strategy Reviews, 48(101111), 101111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101111
53.
GengY.XiangQ.GaoJ.YanY.LiJ. (2024a). Progress and framework of clean energy production: Bibliometric analysis from 2002 to 2022. Energy Strategy Reviews, 101270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101270
54.
GengY. Q.JiangX. Y.BaiW. Q.YanY.GaoJ. (2024b). Research progress of tourism marketing over 30 years: Bibliometrics based on CiteSpace. Ecological Indicators, 162(20), 112059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.112059
55.
GengY. Q.XiangQ. J.ZhangN. G.GaoJ.YanY. (2024c). Bibliometric analysis of microgrid control strategy from 2007 to 2022 based on CiteSpace. Electric Power Components and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325008.2024.2345217
56.
GengY. Q.ZhangX. R.GaoJ.YanY.ChenL. Y. (2024d). Bibliometric analysis of sustainable tourism using CiteSpace. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 202(2), 123310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123310
57.
GhafurianM.BudnarainN.HoeyJ. (2023). Improving humanness of virtual agents and users' cooperation through emotions. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 14(2), 1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1109/taffc.2021.3096831
58.
GualaF.MittoneL.PlonerM. (2013). Group membership, team preferences, and expectations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 86(1), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.003
59.
GuoH.WangZ.SongZ.YuanY.DengX. Y.LiX. L. (2022). Effect of state transition triggered by reinforcement learning in evolutionary prisoner's dilemma game [Article; Early Access]. Neurocomputing, 511(1), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2022.08.023
60.
HaesevoetsT.Van HielA.Van AsscheJ.BostynD. H.FolmerC. R. (2019). An exploration of the motivational basis of take-some and give-some games. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(5), 535–546.
61.
HainiH. (2021). The evolution of China's modern economy and its implications on future growth. Post-Communist Economies, 33(7), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2020.1793610
62.
HauertC.DoebeliM. (2004). Spatial structure often inhibits the evolution of cooperation in the snowdrift game. Nature, 428(6983), 643–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02360
63.
HauertC.TraulsenA.BrandtH.NowakM. A.SigmundK. (2007). Via freedom to coercion: The emergence of costly punishment. Science, 316(5833), 1905–1907. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1141588
HilbigB. E.KieslichP. J.HenningerF.ThielmannI.ZettlerI. (2018). Lead us (not) into temptation: Testing the motivational mechanisms linking honesty-humility to cooperation. European Journal of Personality, 32(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2149
66.
HuaS. J.LiuL. J. (2024). Coevolutionary dynamics of population and institutional rewards in public goods games. Expert Systems with Applications, 237(9), 121579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121579
67.
HuckelbaA. L.Van LangeP. A. M. (2020). The silent killer: Consequences of climate change and how to survive past the year 2050 [review]. Sustainability, 12(9), 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093757
68.
JanssenM. A.OstromE. (2008). Turfs in the lab institutional innovation in real-time dynamic spatial commons. Rationality and Society, 20(4), 371–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463108096786
69.
JinS. X.BallietD.RomanoA.SpadaroG.van LissaC. J.AgostiniM.BélangerJ. J.GützkowB.KreienkampJ.LeanderN. P.PsyCoronaC. (2021). Intergenerational conflicts of interest and prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 171(8), 110535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110535
70.
KaiserK.ReisigM. D. (2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4
71.
KarakostasA.KocherM. G.MatzatD.RauH. A.RieweG. (2023). The team allocator game: Allocation power in public goods games. Games and Economic Behavior, 140(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2023.02.005
72.
KimS. Y.SwannW. L.WeibleC. M.BolognesiT.KrauseR. M.ParkA. Y. S.TangT.MaletskyK.FeiockR. C. (2022). Updating the institutional collective action framework(sic)(sic)(sic)Palabras clave [article; early access]. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12392
73.
KimmerleJ.CressU.HesseF. W. (2007). An interactional perspective on group awareness: Alleviating the information-exchange dilemma (for everybody?). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(11), 899–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.06.002
74.
KleshninaM.HilbeC.SimsaS.ChatterjeeK.NowakM. A. (2023). The effect of environmental information on evolution of cooperation in stochastic games. Nature Communications, 14(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-39625-9
75.
KosfeldM.RustagiD. (2015). Leader punishment and cooperation in groups: Experimental field evidence from commons management in Ethiopia. American Economic Review, 105(2), 747–783. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120700
76.
KroumiD.LessardS. (2022). Average abundancy of cooperation in multi-player games with random payoffs. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 85(3), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-022-01789-1
77.
KruegerJ. I.DiDonatoT. E. (2010). Perceptions of morality and competence in (non)interdependent games. Acta Psychologica, 134(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.12.010
78.
LambertB.DeclerckC. H.BooneC.ParizelP. M. (2017). A functional MRI study on how oxytocin affects decision making in social dilemmas: Cooperate as long as it pays off, aggress only when you think you can win. Hormones and Behavior, 94, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.06.011
79.
LiW. J.ChenZ.JinK. Z.LiL.YuanL.JiangL. L.PercM.KurthsJ. (2022a). Eliminating poverty through social mobility promotes cooperation in social dilemmas. Chaos Solitons & Fractals, 156(7), 111845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.111845
80.
LiW. J.ChenZ.JinK. Z.WangJ.YuanL.GuC. G.JiangL. L.PercM. (2022b). Options for mobility and network reciprocity to jointly yield robust cooperation in social dilemmas. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 435(9), 127456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2022.127456
81.
LiW. J.JiangL. L.ChenZ.PercM.SlavinecM. (2020). Optimization of mobile individuals promotes cooperation in social dilemmas. Chaos Solitons & Fractals, 141(7), 110425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110425
82.
LiX. P.WangH. B.XiaC. Y.PercM. (2019). Effects of reciprocal rewarding on the evolution of cooperation in voluntary social dilemmas. Frontiers in Physics, 7(12), 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2019.00125
83.
LiX. P.WangZ. L.LiuJ. Q.YuG. H. (2023). The sense of cooperation on interdependent networks inspired by influence-based self-organization. Mathematics, 11(4), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11040804
84.
LiaoW.McComasK. A.YuanY. C. (2017). The influence of unrestricted information exchange on willingness to share information with outsiders. Human Communication Research, 43(2), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12104
85.
LiuC. W.WangJ.LiX. P.XiaC. Y. (2020). Diversity of interaction intensity enhances the cooperation of spatial multi-games on interdependent lattices. Physics Letters A, 384(36), 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2020.126928
86.
LofthouseJ. K.HerzbergR. Q. (2023). The continuing case for a polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Sustainability, 15(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043770
87.
LubellM.StaceyM.HummelM. A. (2021). Collective action problems and governance barriers to sea-level rise adaptation in San Francisco Bay. Climatic Change, 167(3-4), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03162-5
88.
LundqvistL. J.von BorgstedeC. (2008). Whose responsibility? Swedish local decision makers and the scale of climate change abatement. Urban Affairs Review, 43(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407304689
89.
LuoY. D. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.646
90.
MaY. J.LuJ.ShiL. (2017). Diversity of neighborhoods promotes cooperation in evolutionary social dilemmas [Review]. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 468, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.010
91.
MajhiS. (2023). Cooperation driven by alike interactions in presence of social viscosity. Chaos, 33(7), 17. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153650
92.
MarkussenT.SharmaS.SinghalS.TarpF. (2021). Inequality, institutions and cooperation [article; early access]. European Economic Review, 138(13), 103842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2021.103842
93.
MillW.TheelenM. M. P. (2019). Social value orientation and group size uncertainty in public good dilemmas. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 81, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.05.001
94.
NelissenR. M. A.DijkerA. J. M.deVriesN. K. (2007). How to turn a hawk into a dove and vice versa: Interactions between emotions and goals in a give-some dilemma game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2), 280–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.009
95.
NockurL.PfattheicherS.KellerJ. (2021). Different punishment systems in a public goods game with asymmetric endowments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93(10), 104096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104096
96.
NordlundA. M.GarvillJ. (2003). Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(4), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(03)00037-9
NowakM. A.SasakiA.TaylorC.FudenbergD. (2004). Emergence of cooperation and evolutionary stability in finite populations. Nature, 428(6983), 646–650. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02414
99.
PercM.Gómez-GardeñesJ.SzolnokiA.FloríaL. M.MorenoY. (2013). Evolutionary dynamics of group interactions on structured populations: A review [review]. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(80), 17. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2012.0997
100.
PercM.JordanJ. J.RandD. G.WangZ.BoccalettiS.SzolnokiA. (2017). Statistical physics of human cooperation [Review]. Physics Reports-Review Section of Physics Letters, 687, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.05.004
PiraveenanM.SawleshwarkarS.WalshM.ZablotskaI.BhattacharyyaS.FarooquiH. H.BhatnagarT.KaranA.MurhekarM.ZodpeyS.RaoK. S. M.PattisonP.ZomayaA.PercM. (2021). Optimal governance and implementation of vaccination programmes to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Royal Society Open Science, 8(6), 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210429
103.
PodderS.RighiS.PancottoF. (2021). Reputation and punishment sustain cooperation in the optional public goods game. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 376(1838), 9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0293
104.
QuintanaA.MarcosS.Malpica-CruzL.TamayoL.NohJ. A. C.MeloF. F. R.FultonS. (2023). Socioeconomic dilemmas of commercial markets for invasive species: Lessons from lionfish in Mexico. Ices Journal of Marine Science, 80(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsac205
105.
RamalingamA.MoralesA. J.WalkerJ. M. (2019). Peer punishment of acts of omission versus acts of commission in give and take social dilemmas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 164, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.05.033
106.
RanM.LiM. F.ZhaoY. X. (2023). Long-range mobility and cooperation evolution under condition of different information amounts. Chaos Solitons & Fractals, 173(13), 113759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.113759
107.
RandD. G. (2017). Social dilemma cooperation (unlike Dictator Game giving) is intuitive for men as well as women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.013
RandD. G.PeysakhovichA.Kraft-ToddG. T.NewmanG. E.WurzbacherO.NowakM. A.GreeneJ. D. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5(12), 3677. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4677
110.
RauR.ThielmannI.BreilS. M.GeukesK.KrauseS.NikoleizigL.BackM. D.NestlerS. (2020). Do perceiver effects in interpersonal perception predict cooperation in social dilemmas?Collabra-Psychology, 6(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.332
111.
RocaC. P.CuestaJ. A.SánchezA. (2009). Evolutionary game theory: Temporal and spatial effects beyond replicator dynamics [Review]. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(4), 208–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2009.08.001
112.
RomanoA.SpadaroG.BallietD.JoiremanJ.Van LissaC.JinS. X.AgostiniM.BélangerJ. J.GützkowB.KreienkampJ.LeanderN. P. (2021). Cooperation and trust across societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 52(7), 622–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120988913
113.
RossettiC. S. L.HilbeC. (2023). Direct reciprocity among humans [review; early access]. Ethology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13407
114.
SalahshourM.OberhauserV.SmerlakM. (2022). The cost of noise: Stochastic punishment falls short of sustaining cooperation in social dilemma experiments. Plos One, 17(3), 13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263028
SantaJ. C.ExadaktylosF.Soto-FaracoS. (2018). Beliefs about others' intentions determine whether cooperation is the faster choice. Scientific Reports, 8(10), 7509. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-25926-3
117.
SantosF. C.PachecoJ. M.LenaertsT. (2006). Evolutionary dynamics of social dilemmas in structured heterogeneous populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(9), 3490–3494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508201103
118.
SantosF. C.SantosM. D.PachecoJ. M. (2008). Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods games. Nature, 454(7201), 213–U249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06940
119.
SantosF. P.PachecoJ. M.SantosF. C. (2021). The complexity of human cooperation under indirect reciprocity [Review]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 376(1838), 10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0291
120.
SchmidL.HilbeC.ChatterjeeK.NowakM. A. (2022). Direct reciprocity between individuals that use different strategy spaces. Plos Computational Biology, 18(6), 29. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010149
121.
SigmundK.De SilvaH.TraulsenA.HauertC. (2010). Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons. Nature, 466(7308), 861–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09203
122.
SircovaA.KarimiF.OsinE. N.LeeS.HolmeP.StrömbomD. (2015). Simulating irrational human behavior to prevent resource depletion. Plos One, 10(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117612
123.
SmithE. A. (2010). Communication and collective action: Language and the evolution of human cooperation [review]. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(4), 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.03.001
124.
SunQ. G. Q.WuB.HuangJ.GuoH.JiangC. (2024). Sellers and buyers with lower construal levels are more likely to reach second-hand transactions: The focus-separation effect between sellers and buyers. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(8), 1141–1156.
125.
SunQ. Z.HuangJ. R.YuX. F.GaoQ. D. (2023). Give a man a fish or teach him to fish? Differences in donor behavior between high and low social classes. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(10), 1677. https://doi.org/10.3724/Sp.J.1041.2023.01677
126.
SzekelyA.BrunerD.SteinmoS.TodorA.VolintiruC.AndrighettoG. (2023). Preferences for honesty can support cooperation [Article; Early Access]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2328
127.
TanimotoJ.FujikiT.WangZ.HagishimaA.IkegayaN. (2014). Dangerous drivers foster social dilemma structures hidden behind a traffic flow with lane changes. Journal of Statistical Mechanics-Theory and Experiment, 16, P11027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2014/11/p11027
128.
TanimotoJ.NakamuraK. (2016). Social dilemma structure hidden behind traffic flow with route selection. Physica a-Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 459, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.04.023
129.
TaoY.LinP.-H. (2023). Analyses of sustainable development of cultural and creative parks: A pilot study based on the approach of CiteSpace knowledge mapping. Sustainability, 15(13), 10489. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310489
130.
ThomJ. M.AfzalU.GoldN. (2022). Testing team reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination games. Judgment and Decision Making, 17(2), 284–314.
131.
Van LangeP. A. M.JoiremanJ.MilinskiM. (2018). Climate change: What psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(4), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417753945
132.
Van LangeP. A. M.JoiremanJ.ParksC. D.Van DijkE. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review [review]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003
133.
Van LangeP. A. M.RandD. G. (2022). Human cooperation and the crises of climate change, COVID-19, and misinformation [review]. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044
134.
WangL.FanL. T.ZhangL.ZouR. C.WangZ. (2023a). Synergistic effects of adaptive reward and reinforcement learning rules on cooperation. New Journal of Physics, 25(7), 11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/acd26e
135.
WangX. F.PercM. (2021). Emergence of cooperation in spatial social dilemmas with expulsion. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 402(7), 126149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2021.126149
136.
WangX. M.CoutoM. C.WangN. Y.AnX. M.ChenB.DongY. L.HilbeC.ZhangB. Y. (2023b). Cooperation and coordination in heterogeneous populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 378(1876), 9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0504
137.
WangY. Z. (2023). Intergroup competition, group status, and individuals' cooperation behavior: Evidence from a laboratory experiment [Article; Early Access]. Finance Research Letters, 56(8), 104090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104090
138.
WangZ.JusupM.GuoH.ShiL.GecekS.AnandM.PercM.BauchC. T.KurthsJ.BoccalettiS.SchellnhuberH. J. (2020). Communicating sentiment and outlook reverses inaction against collective risks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(30), 17650–17655. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922345117
139.
WangZ.JusupM.ShiL.LeeJ. H.IwasaY.BoccalettiS. (2018). Exploiting a cognitive bias promotes cooperation in social dilemma experiments. Nature Communications, 9(7), 2954. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05259-5
140.
WangZ.KokuboS.JusupM.TanimotoJ. (2015). Universal scaling for the dilemma strength in evolutionary games [Review]. Physics of Life Reviews, 14, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2015.04.033
141.
WangZ.KokuboS.TanimotoJ.FukudaE.ShigakiK. (2013). Insight into the so-called spatial reciprocity. Physical Review E, 88(4), 2. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.88.042145
142.
WuG. Z.LiuJ. H. (2023). Extending the procedural justice theory to the Chinese context: The role of collective efficacy. British Journal of Criminology, 63(1), 40–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab115
143.
WuY.ZhangZ. P.ChangS. H. (2018). Heterogeneous indirect reciprocity promotes the evolution of cooperation in structured populations. Chaos, 28(12), 8. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5066589
144.
WubbenM. J. J.De CremerD.Van DijkE. (2009). How emotion communication guides reciprocity: Establishing cooperation through disappointment and anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 987–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.010
XieY. Y.HanW.QiJ. X.ZhaoZ. W. (2024). Cooperation with dynamic asymmetric evaluation in complex networks from a risk perspective. Chaos, 34(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0177804
YangC. L.ZhangB.CharnessG.LiC.LienJ. W. (2018). Endogenous rewards promote cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(40), 9968–9973. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808241115
150.
ZhangH. R. (2019). Common fate motivates cooperation: The influence of risks on contributions to public goods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 70(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.10.012
151.
ZhangY. J.ZengZ. Y.PiB.FengM. Y. (2023). An evolutionary game with revengers and sufferers on complex networks. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 457(10), 128168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2023.128168
152.
ZhengW. Q.CaoS. L.WangY. Y.YangK.ChenY. Y.SongG. P. (2021). The impact of social value orientation, game context and trust on cooperative behavior after cooperative video game play. Psychological Reports, 124(3), 1353–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120934705
153.
ZhuX. Z.SuX.MaJ. M.TianH.LiuR. R. (2019). Evolutionary cooperation in networked public goods game with dependency groups. Complexity, 2019(8), 8670802. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8670802
154.
ZhuoS. Q.LiuJ.RenT. Y.SunJ. Y. (2022). Evolution dynamics with the switching strategy of punishment and expulsion in the spatial public goods game. New Journal of Physics, 24(12), 10. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aca995
