Teamwork

Cooperation or Betrayal: Which Strategy Fits You Best?

In real life, just like in games, players can cooperate or defect on each other.

Posted February 21, 2023 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

Key points

The Snowdrift game is a public goods dilemma where players must decide whether to cooperate or defect in order to achieve a common goal.
In the game, those who defect will fight over the resources, while those who cooperate will share resources but not gain as much individually.
One solution to this dilemma might be to incentivize cooperation and discourage defection by enabling punishment and reward systems.

Source: twendensky/Pixabay

Once upon a time, in a far-off land, there were two neighboring kingdoms: the Kingdom of Cooperation and the Kingdom of Defection. The people in the Kingdom of Cooperation were known for their strong sense of community and their willingness to work together to solve problems. In contrast, the people in the Kingdom of Defection were known for their selfishness and their willingness to exploit others for their own gain.

One day, a beastly dragon attacked both kingdoms, causing great destruction and chaos. The King of Cooperation immediately reached out to the King of Defection, hoping to form a united front against the dragon. However, the King of Defection was hesitant to join forces, fearing that he might lose his advantage over the people of Cooperation.

Despite this, the people of Cooperation worked tirelessly to defend their land, sharing resources and expertise with each other. Meanwhile, the people of Defection struggled to fend off the dragon on their own, hoarding their resources and refusing to help their neighbors.

This is a fun little fairy tale, but it also has real-world implications. Are you always a cooperator, or are you tempted at times to betray others because it will give you a chance to get ahead?

The Snowdrift Game

The snowdrift game, also known as the "snowdrift dilemma" and "hawks and doves," is a cooperative game that demonstrates the concept of public goods. In this game, two players are tasked with clearing a snowdrift in order to access a valuable resource, such as food, shelter, or territory. Each player can choose to cooperate by working together to clear the snowdrift, or to defect and not contribute to the effort. When two hawks meet, they will fight over the resource, which can be costly for both players. On the other hand, when two doves meet, they will peacefully share the resource, but neither will gain as much as they would if they fought over it.

If both players cooperate (doves), they are able to clear the snowdrift and access the valuable resource, resulting in a positive outcome for both players. However, if one player defects (hawk) while the other cooperates, the defector receives the entire benefit of the resource while the cooperator bears the cost of the effort. This results in a negative outcome for the cooperator and a positive outcome for the defector.

Tragedy of the Commons

The snowdrift game illustrates the concept of the tragedy of the commons, a public goods dilemma in which individuals acting in their own self-interest can lead to a negative outcome for the group as a whole. The temptation to defect and not contribute to the effort is strong, as it results in a higher payout for the individual. However, this ultimately leads to a negative outcome for both players, as the snowdrift remains uncleared and the resource remains inaccessible.

The original tragedy of the commons game was modeled after a group of farmers who all share a valuable resource: a grassy grazing open to all the farmers' sheep. Once it is overused by a few defecting farmers, it either disappears entirely or regenerates so slowly that it is effectively depleted. Each player has the option to either graze their cattle or abstain from grazing. The tragedy occurs when each player chooses to maximize their own benefit, leading to the depletion of the shared resource. As more players join the game, the resource becomes more depleted, leading to a situation where everyone loses.

Solutions

One solution here is to incentivize cooperation and discourage defection by enabling punishment and reward systems. For example, in the snowdrift game, a punishment system could be implemented in which defectors are fined, while cooperators are rewarded. This helps to ensure that both players have an incentive to cooperate and clear the snowdrift.

Another solution is the use of communication and trust between players. In the snowdrift game, if players are able to communicate and build trust with one another, they may be more likely to cooperate and clear the snowdrift together.

Conclusion

In the end, the Kingdom of Cooperation was able to defeat the dragon, thanks to their unity and cooperation. The people of Defection, however, suffered great losses, and their king realized the error of his ways. From that day forward, the Kingdom of Defection began to cooperate with their neighbors, and the two kingdoms lived in peace and prosperity.

Teamwork Essential Reads

How Smart Collaboration Works

Forget Independence: 3 Ways to Teach Children Cooperation

References

Alexander, R.D. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Axelrod, R. & Hamilton, W.D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390– 1396.

Nowak, M. A. & Sigmund, K. (2004). Evolutionary dynamics of biological games, Science, 793-799. DOI: 10.1126/science.1093411

Bennett, K. (2018). Teaching the Monty Hall dilemma to explore decision-making, probability, and regret in behavioral science classrooms. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12 (2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2018.120213