Evolution of social norms for moral judgment

TL;DR

This paper presents a mathematical model exploring how social norms for moral judgment evolve and compete within stratified populations, highlighting conditions that lead to norm dominance or destabilization of cooperation.

Contribution

It introduces a model where different groups adopt competing moral norms, analyzing how norms spread and dominate based on group dynamics and reputation updates.

Findings

A minority group can dominate if it adopts Stern Judging.

Stratification often destabilizes cooperation unless in-group interactions are favored.

Norm competition influences the evolution of moral assessment standards.

Abstract

Reputations provide a powerful mechanism to sustain cooperation, as individuals cooperate with those of good social standing. But how should moral reputations be updated as we observe social behavior, and when will a population converge on a common norm of moral assessment? Here we develop a mathematical model of cooperation conditioned on reputations, for a population that is stratified into groups. Each group may subscribe to a different social norm for assessing reputations, and so norms compete as individuals choose to move from one group to another. We show that a group initially comprising a minority of the population may nonetheless overtake the entire population--especially if it adopts the Stern Judging norm, which assigns a bad reputation to individuals who cooperate with those of bad standing. When individuals do not change group membership, stratifying reputation information into groups tends to destabilize cooperation, unless individuals are strongly insular and favor in-group social interactions. We discuss the implications of our results for the structure of information flow in a population and the evolution of social norms of moral judgment.