Paradoxes in the coevolution of contagions and institutions

Epidemic models study the spread of undesired agents through populations, be it infectious diseases through a country, misinformation in social media or pests infesting a region. In combating these epidemics, we rely neither on global top-down interventions, nor solely on individual adaptations. Instead, interventions commonly come from local institutions such as public health departments, moderation teams on social media platforms or other forms of group governance. Classic models, which are often individual or agent-based, are ill-suited to capture local adaptations. We leverage developments of institutional dynamics based on cultural group selection to study how groups attempt local control of an epidemic by taking inspiration from the successes and failures of other groups. Incorporating institutional changes into epidemic dynamics reveals paradoxes: a higher transmission rate can result in smaller outbreaks as does decreasing the speed of institutional adaptation. When groups perceive a contagion as more worrisome, they can invest in improved policies and, if they maintain these policies long enough to have impact, lead to a reduction in endemicity. By looking at the interplay between the speed of institutions and the transmission rate of the contagions, we find rich coevolutionary dynamics that reflect the complexity of known biological and social contagions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Published
2024-08-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.1117
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Paradoxes in the coevolution of contagions and institutions

Timothy Michael Waring, Jonathan St-Onge, Giulio Burgio, Laurent Hébert‐Dufresne et al.
5 citations
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
5.66
article

Paradoxes in the coevolution of contagions and institutions

Timothy Michael Waring, Jonathan St-Onge, Giulio Burgio, Laurent Hébert‐Dufresne, Samuel F. Rosenblatt
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Epidemic models study the spread of undesired agents through populations, be it infectious diseases through a country, misinformation in social media or pests infesting a region. In combating these epidemics, we rely neither on global top-down interventions, nor solely on individual adaptations. Instead, interventions commonly come from local institutions such as public health departments, moderation teams on social media platforms or other forms of group governance. Classic models, which are often individual or agent-based, are ill-suited to capture local adaptations. We leverage developments of institutional dynamics based on cultural group selection to study how groups attempt local control of an epidemic by taking inspiration from the successes and failures of other groups. Incorporating institutional changes into epidemic dynamics reveals paradoxes: a higher transmission rate can result in smaller outbreaks as does decreasing the speed of institutional adaptation. When groups perceive a contagion as more worrisome, they can invest in improved policies and, if they maintain these policies long enough to have impact, lead to a reduction in endemicity. By looking at the interplay between the speed of institutions and the transmission rate of the contagions, we find rich coevolutionary dynamics that reflect the complexity of known biological and social contagions.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesVol. 291(2028)
University of Vermont (US), Universitat Rovira i Virgili (ES), University of Maine (US)
National Science Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
5.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.