Should You Cheat, Cooperate, or Reciprocate?

Our lives are full of choices and dilemmas. For example, should you share credit with a coworker or take all the praise yourself? Should you stay faithful to your mate (and hope they do, too) or distrust them and cheat when you can? In general, should you trust and cooperate with others or look out for yourself—even when it is at someone else's expense?

Game Theory and Life's Dilemmas

This question (and many others) has been explored by a discipline called "game theory." This discipline explores complex interactions, by modeling them down to simple "games." Each game highlights the basic dilemma of a situation, especially the costs and payoffs associated with every choice for each person involved.

Within a game, the "players" make choices, based on various rules, and reap an outcome—depending on what they do and what other players choose, too. Often, these games are played by real people to test various strategies and outcomes. Nevertheless, they can also be simulated by computer programs to see how they turn out as well.

Within game theory, one of the most fundamental games is called The Prisoner's Dilemma. This models a two-person situation, in which each player is given the choice to compete or cooperate. The classic setup for this game is that you have been arrested for a crime. You have an associate, also arrested, with whom you cannot communicate. You are given the choice to blame them for the crimes you are charged with by the police (compete) or remain silent (cooperate). Your associate is given the same options.

Initially, the choice seems simple: blame them and go free yourself. But, if they decide to blame you, too, then you both go to prison for a long, long time. Not so good.

Thus, you might consider cooperating and keeping quiet instead. If you both keep quiet, you'll probably be held for about a year and then get freed at trial. Not as good as immediate release, but not bad.

What if your associate blames you, though, while you remain silent? Then you go to prison, and they go free at your expense. Given that, how much would you trust them to keep quiet, especially when you can't talk things over with them?

Overall, the best bet is to blame your associate and try to get set free. But, they often make the same calculation and turn on you, too. So, the "best" strategy for each individual in this type of scenario, leads to the worst loss for them both. A grim outcome, but one we are all too familiar with in the world.

Simulations and Solutions

Nevertheless, in the real world, people do sometimes cooperate and trust instead. One of the reasons is that most relationships are built on repeated interactions, not a single choice. Usually, we play a game over many rounds with each other. So, if I act selfishly today, you can punish me by not cooperating tomorrow. That creates an incentive for everyone to play nice and get the benefits of cooperation.

To explore this repeated rounds scenario further, Axelrod (1984) organized a computer simulation contest, where theorists and programmers submitted strategies to play a version of the dilemma above. In this case, however, strategies played each other for many rounds. This allowed researchers to see how competitive and cooperative strategies would work out in the long run.

According to the results, selfish competitors were the biggest losers over time, while trusting cooperators did better in the long run. We see this in life, too. Act selfishly or compete and people stop "playing" with you. Trust or cooperate and people do the same with you instead.

The winning strategy, however, was being nice—but not a pushover. It was known as tit-for-tat (TFT). It began by cooperating. Nevertheless, if the other player acted selfishly and competed in a round, then TFT would respond by also acting selfishly in the next round. Thus, TFT ended up reciprocating and rewarding cooperation with cooperation, but punishing competition with competition, too.

Relationships Essential Reads

Why Are Friends With Benefits on the Rise?

5 Ways to Quit the Habit of "Kitchen Sinking" Your Partner

Choices and Games in Your Life

The lessons from those results were summed up well by Axelrod (1984) as "don't be envious, don't be the first to defect, reciprocate both cooperation and defection, and don't be too clever." An excellent summation. Looking through my articles, as well as my relationship book Attraction Psychology, I can offer a bit more detail, too.

1. Relationships are about satisfying, not maximizing. If we are always looking for the "best" possible outcome for ourselves, we tend to get greedy and hurt others. We're also never satisfied, chasing after the next best thing we can get. Instead, the solution to being satisfied and cooperating is to figure out what you really need. Then, find someone who can meet that basic requirement, cooperate with them, and be satisfied.
2. Learn how to build trust. We have all been hurt and cheated by someone in our past. Afterward, it is common to protect ourselves and be less willing to trust again. Nevertheless, if we end up cheating and competing ourselves, then we can spoil the next relationship, too. So, learning how to build trust with a partner and cooperating again is essential for satisfying relationships.
3. Don't be too forgiving. Reciprocity is key here. Make sure to reward nice with nice. That is essential. Nevertheless, if someone screws up and acts selfishly, then you should require they make it up to you and re-earn your trust. If they don't, then stop "playing" with them altogether.
4. Keep relationships simple. Don't over-analyze. If a relationship feels complicated and anxiety-provoking, then it probably isn't going well. Satisfying relationships are built on easy exchanges and reciprocity. When mistakes and problems happen, then you find a way to make amends and forgive. When good things happen, be grateful, reward, and reciprocate. That's the simple tit-for-tat, which leads to the best relationship outcomes in the long run.

© 2024 by Jeremy S. Nicholson, M.A., M.S.W., Ph.D. All rights reserved.