Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:15:04.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crime, punishment, and evolution in an adversarial game†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2015

MICHAEL MCBRIDE ,
RYAN KENDALL ,
MARIA R. D'ORSOGNA  and
MARTIN B. SHORT
MICHAEL MCBRIDE
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA email: [email protected]
RYAN KENDALL
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA email: [email protected]
MARIA R. D'ORSOGNA
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA email: [email protected]
MARTIN B. SHORT*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA email: [email protected]
*
‡Corresponding author. 686 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0160, USA, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the game theoretic properties of a model of crime first introduced by Short et al. (2010 Phys. Rev. E82, 066114) as the SBD Adversarial Game. We identify the rationalizable strategies and one-shot equilibria under multiple equilibrium refinements. We further show that SBD's main result about the effectiveness of defecting-punishers (“Informants”) in driving the system to evolve to the cooperative equilibrium under an imitation dynamic generalizes to a best response dynamic, though only under certain parameter regimes. The nature of this strategy's role, however, differs significantly between the two dynamics: in the SBD imitation dynamic, Informants are sufficient but not necessary to achieve the cooperative equilibrium, while under the best response dynamic, Informants are necessary but not sufficient for convergence to cooperation. Since a policy of simply converting citizens to Informants will not guarantee success under best response dynamics, we identify alternative strategies that may help the system reach cooperation in this case, e.g., the use of moderate but not too severe punishments on criminals.

Keywords

adversarial game theorymathematical criminologysocial modelingbest response dynamicscooperative behavior
Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 27 , Issue 3: Mathematical Modelling of Crime and Security , June 2016 , pp. 317 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The material herein is based upon work supported by the Army Research Office Award No. #W911NF-11-1-0332. McBride and Short were also supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research Award No. FA9550-10-1-0569.

References

[1]Beittel, J. (2009) Mexico's Drug Related Violence, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
[2]Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2011) A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and its Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
[3]Boyd, R., Gintis, H. & Bowles, S. (2010) Coordinated punishment of defectors Sustains cooperation and can proliferate when rare. Science 328, 617–620.Google Scholar
[4]Bursik, R. & Grasmick, H. (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime: Dimensions of Effective Community Control, Lexington Books, New York.Google Scholar
[5]Carpenter, J. (2007) Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods. Games Econ. Behav. 60, 31–51.Google Scholar
[6]Chaudhuri, A. (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Exp. Econ. 14, 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Cinyabuguma, M., Page, T. & Putterman, L. (2005). Cooperation under the threat of expulsion in a public goods experiment. J. Public Econ. 89, 1421–1435.Google Scholar
[8]D'Orsogna, M. R., Kendall, R., McBride, M. & Short, M. B. (2013) Criminal defectors lead to the emergence of cooperation in an experimental, adversarial game. PloS One 8, e61458.Google Scholar
[9]Eaton, B. C. & Wen, J. (2008) Myopic deterrence policies and the instability of equilibria. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 65, 609–624.Google Scholar
[10]Ehrlich, I. (1996) Crime, punishment, and the market for offenses. J. Econ. Perspect. 10, 43–67.Google Scholar
[11]Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. (2004) Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol. Human Behav. 25, 63–87.Google Scholar
[12]Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Fender, J. (1999) A general equilibrium model of crime and punishment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 39, 437–453.Google Scholar
[14]Fudenberg, D. & Levine, D. (1996) Game Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
[15]Fudenberg, D. & Pathak, P. (2010) Unobserved punishment supports cooperation. J. Public Econ. 94, 78–86.Google Scholar
[16]Gambetta, D. (1988) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
[17]Hauert, C.et al. (2007) Via freedom to Coercion: The emergence of costly punishment. Science 316, 1905–1907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[18]Henrich, J. & Boyd, R. (2001) Why people punish defectors: Weak conformist transmission can stabilize costly enforcement of norms in cooperative dilemmas. J. Theor. Biol. 208, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[19]Ledyard, J. (1995) Public goods: Some experimental results. In: Kagel, J. & Roth, A. (editors), Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 111–194.Google Scholar
[20]Levine, D. & Pesendorfer, W. (2007) The evolution of cooperation through imitation. Games Econ. Behav. 58, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
[22]Ostrom, E., Walker, J. & Gardner, R. (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 86, 404–417.Google Scholar
[23]Sampson, R. & Groves, W. (1989) Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Sandholm, W. (2010) Population Games and Evolutionary Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
[25]Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J. & D'Orsogna, M. R. (2010) Cooperation and punishment in an adversarial game: How defectors pave the way to a peaceful society. Phys. Rev. E 82, 066114.Google Scholar
[26]Short, M. B., Pitcher, A. & D'Orsogna, M. R. (2013) External conversions of player strategy in an evolutionary game: A cost-benefit analysis through optimal control. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 24, 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27]Skogan, W. (1990) Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods, University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
[28]Takahashi, S. (2010) Community enforcement when players observe partners' past play. J. Econ. Theory 145, 42–62.Google Scholar
[29]Xiao, E. & Houser, D. (2011) Punish in public. J. Public Econ. 95, 1006–1017.Google Scholar