Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Cooperative Allosteric Transitions01:58

Cooperative Allosteric Transitions

8.9K
Cooperative allosteric transitions can occur in multimeric proteins, where each subunit of the protein has its own ligand-binding site. When a ligand binds to any of these subunits, it triggers a conformational change that affects the binding sites in the other subunits; this can change the affinity of the other sites for their respective ligands. The ability of the protein to change the shape of its binding site is attributed to the presence of a mix of flexible and stable segments in the...
8.9K
Cooperative Allosteric Transitions01:58

Cooperative Allosteric Transitions

3.1K
3.1K
Cooperative Allosteric Transitions01:58

Cooperative Allosteric Transitions

2.7K
2.7K
Cooperative Binding of Transcription Regulators02:13

Cooperative Binding of Transcription Regulators

7.4K
Transcriptional regulators bind to specific cis-regulatory sequences in the DNA to regulate gene transcription. These cis-regulatory sequences are very short, usually less than ten nucleotide pairs in length. The short length means that there is a high probability of the exact same sequence randomly occurring throughout the genome.  Since regulators can also bind to groups of similar sequences, this further increases the chances of random binding. Transcriptional regulators form...
7.4K
Cooperative Binding of Transcription Regulators02:13

Cooperative Binding of Transcription Regulators

2.6K
2.6K
Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory01:27

Maslow's Need Hierarchy Theory

1.2K
Abraham Maslow's theory of motivation, introduced in 1943, is widely known as the "Hierarchy of Needs." This theory posits that human needs are arranged in a hierarchical structure, starting with basic survival needs and progressing toward more complex psychological and self-fulfillment desires. The hierarchy is typically a pyramid, and the lower needs must be satisfied to reach the next level.
At the pyramid's base are physiological needs, including food, water, and shelter...
1.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Individual locomotor bias drives counterclockwise motion in pedestrian crowds.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

EVApeCognition: An 18-Year Dataset of Great Ape Cognition.

Scientific data·2026
Same author

Higher-order interactions shape collective human behaviour.

Nature human behaviour·2025
Same author

Perception of own centrality in social networks.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America·2025
Same author

How risk communication shapes individual response to climate change: an experimental study.

Scientific reports·2025
Same author

Coevolution of individual perception and cooperative behavior in the norm compliance dilemma.

Physical review. E·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 12, 2026

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.1K

Collaborative hierarchy maintains cooperation in asymmetric games.

Alberto Antonioni1,2,3, María Pereda4,5,6, Katherine A Cronin7

  • 1Department of Economics, University College London, London, UK. alberto.antonioni@gmail.com.

Scientific Reports
|March 31, 2018
PubMed
Summary

Social hierarchies impact cooperation. Hierarchies based on group performance do not harm cooperation, but those based on individual performance decrease it, as rankings act as reputation signals. Understanding hierarchy formation is key.

More Related Videos

BioMEMS: Forging New Collaborations Between Biologists and Engineers
07:26

BioMEMS: Forging New Collaborations Between Biologists and Engineers

Published on: November 1, 2007

8.6K
Group Synchronization During Collaborative Drawing Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy
07:53

Group Synchronization During Collaborative Drawing Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Published on: August 5, 2022

2.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 12, 2026

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.1K
BioMEMS: Forging New Collaborations Between Biologists and Engineers
07:26

BioMEMS: Forging New Collaborations Between Biologists and Engineers

Published on: November 1, 2007

8.6K
Group Synchronization During Collaborative Drawing Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy
07:53

Group Synchronization During Collaborative Drawing Using Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Published on: August 5, 2022

2.5K

Area of Science:

  • Behavioral Economics
  • Social Psychology
  • Game Theory

Background:

  • Cooperative behavior is crucial in social contexts, with social structures significantly influencing its evolution.
  • Previous research indicated that competitive social hierarchies negatively affect the development of cooperation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how different methods of establishing social hierarchies affect cooperative behavior.
  • To determine if group-based versus individual-based performance rankings influence cooperation differently.

Main Methods:

  • Participants engaged in a Public Goods Game to establish hierarchical rankings.
  • Two treatments were used: ranking based on group earnings and ranking based on individual earnings.
  • Following ranking, participants played asymmetric Prisoner's Dilemma games with rank-dependent payoffs.

Main Results:

  • Hierarchies established through group performance showed no detrimental effect on cooperation.
  • Hierarchies based on individual performance led to a significant decrease in cooperation.
  • Participants interpreted rankings as reputation, influencing their cooperative decisions in subsequent interactions.

Conclusions:

  • The method of hierarchy establishment is critical for its impact on cooperation.
  • Group-based performance hierarchies can coexist with cooperation, unlike individual-based ones.
  • Reputational information conveyed by social rank influences cooperative behavior.