Article published In: Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:1 (2016) ► pp.1–25
On the reliability of unreliable information
Gossip as cultural memory
Joanna J. Bryson | Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, UK | Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University, USA
Paul Rauwolf | Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, UK | Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, UK
Published online: 7 October 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.1.01mit
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.1.01mit
Abstract
When individuals learn from what others tell them, the information is subject to transmission error that does not arise in learning from direct experience. Yet evidence shows that humans consistently prefer this apparently more unreliable source of information. We examine the effect this preference has in cases where the information concerns a judgment on others’ behaviour and is used to establish cooperation in a society. We present a spatial model confirming that cooperation can be sustained by gossip containing a high degree of uncertainty. Accuracy alone does not predict the value of information in evolutionary terms; relevance, the impact of information on behavioural outcomes, must also be considered. We then show that once relevance is incorporated as a criterion, second-hand information can no longer be discounted on the basis of its poor fidelity alone. Finally we show that the relative importance of accuracy and relevance depends on factors of life history and demography.
Keywords: gossip, reputation, cooperation, social norm
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Model
- 2.1.1Individual interactions: the donation game
- 2.1.2Reputation assigned by observers according to a social norm
- 2.1.3Reputation impacts on individual choice of action
- 2.1.4Evolution according to payoff
- 2.2Experiment 1. Judgments made without full knowledge
- 2.2.1Method
- 2.2.2Simulation
- 2.2.3Results and discussion
- 2.3Experiment 2. Agents’ knowledge of reputations differs according to the spread of gossip
- 2.3.1Method
- 2.3.2Results and discussion
- 2.3.3Formal analysis of an ALLD agent’s reputation
- 2.3.4Results and discussion
- 2.4Experiment 3. Personal experience versus gossip under limited lifespan
- 2.4.1Method
- 2.4.2Results and discussion
- 2.4.3Formal analysis of gossip versus direct observation
- 2.4.4Results and discussion
- 2.1Model
- 3.General discussion
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgments
- Note
References
References (44)
Abbink, K., Brandts, J., Herrmann, B., and Orzen, H. (2012). Parochial altruism in inter-group conflicts. Economics Letters, 117(1):45–48.
Alexander, R. D. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. Foundations of Human Behavior. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Alizon, S. and Taylor, P. (2008). Empty sites can promote altruistic behaviour. Evolution, 62(6):1335–1344.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. a minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9):1–70.
Dawkins, R. (1976). Hierarchical organisation: A candidate principle for ethology. In Bateson, P. P. G. and Hinde, R. A., editors, Growing Points in Ethology, pages 7–54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dessalles, J.-L. (2007). Why we talk: the evolutionary origins of language. Oxford University Press.
Enquist, M. and Leimar, O. (1993). The evolution of cooperation in mobile organisms. Animal Behaviour, 451:747–757.
Fahle, M. and Poggio, T. (1981). Visual hyperacuity: Spatiotemporal interpolation in human vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 213(1193):451–477.
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., and Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415:755.
Gergely, G. and Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: the role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge, pages 229–255. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction. Berg, New York.
Goldberg, D. and Deb, K. (1991). A comparative analysis of selection schemes used in genetic algorithms. Urbana, 511:61801–2996.
Gruber, T., Poisot, T., Zuberbühler, K., Hoppitt, W., and Hobaiter, C. (2015). The spread of a novel behavior in wild chimpanzees: New insights into the ape cultural mind. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8(2):e1017164.
Henrich, J. and McElreath, R. (2003). The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(3):123–135.
Hess, N. and Hagen, E. (2006). Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human Nature, 17(3):337–354.
Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J., and Hinton, G. E. (1991). Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79–87.
Kao, A. B. and Couzin, I. D. (2014). Decision accuracy in complex environments is often maximized by small group sizes. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1784).
Kokko, H. (1997). Evolutionarily stable strategies of age-dependent sexual advertisement. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41(2):99–107.
McElreath, R. and Boyd, R. (2007). Mathematical models of social evolution: A guide for the perplexed. University of Chicago Press.
Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Infant imitation after a 1-week delay: Long-term memory for novel acts and multiple stimuli. Developmental psychology, 24(4):470.
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., and Krambeck, H.-J. (2006). Reputation helps solve the tragedy of the commons. Nature, 415(6870).
Nagell, K., Olguin, R. S., and Tomasello, M. (1993). Processes of social learning in the tool use of chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) and human children (homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 107(2):174–186.
Nakamura, M. and Masuda, N. (2011). Indirect reciprocity under incomplete observation. PLoS Computational Biology, 7(7):e1002113.
Nowak, M. A. and Sigmund, K. (1998). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 3931:573–577.
Ohtsuki, H. and Iwasa, Y. (2006). The leading eight: Social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239(4):435–444.
Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., and Nowak, M. A. (2009). Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment. Nature, 457(7225):79–82.
Rand, D. G., Nowak, M. A., Fowler, J. H., and Christakis, N. A. (2014). Static network structure can stabilize human cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(48):17093–17098.
Rauwolf, P., Mitchell, D., and Bryson, J. J. (2015). Value homophily benefits cooperation but motivates employing incorrect social information. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 367(0):246–261.
Richerson, P. J. and Boyd, R. (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Roberts, G. (2008). Evolution of direct and indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1631):173–179.
Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2008). Defining biological communication. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(2):387–395.
Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Semmann, D., and Milinski, M. (2007). Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(44):17435–17440.
Taylor, D. J. (2014). Evolution of the Social Contract. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Bath.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1):35–57.
Čače, I. and Bryson, J. J. (2007). Agent based modelling of communication costs: Why information can be free. In Lyon, C., Nehaniv, C. L., and Cangelosi, A., editors, Emergence and Evolution of Linguistic Communication, pages 305–322. Springer, London.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Okafuji, Yuki, Jun Baba, Junya Nakanishi, Itaru Kuramoto, Kohei Ogawa, Yuichiro Yoshikawa & Hiroshi Ishiguro
Rudnicki, Konrad, Carolyn Declerck, Charlotte De Backer & Mario Berth
2019. Physiological changes during first encounters and their role in determining the perceived interaction quality. Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:2 ► pp. 275 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
