Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
some probability , but also depending on their tolerance for poor performance . The model allows us not only to examine the effects of rates of behavioral flexibility , but it also allows us to explore how bad actors should allow circumstances to become before changing strategies .
My core result is that under some conditions behavioral flexibility can lead to suboptimality at the group level , even in dynamic environments . In addition , flexibility can be suboptimal in an indirect way in the form of lower diversity and greater inequality , again at the group level . The model only has two types , so diversity is the ratio of one type to another , where a 50 / 50 system is the most diverse and a 99 / 1 is the least . Equality is measured in terms of the proportion of utility held by each type . A smaller result in some cases is that the group with the higher utility does not necessarily have the most members .
A second result focuses on the role of the environment . The influence of a turbulent environment works in two directions . First , no amount of flexibility can help agents overcome environmental disadvantage in simply some situations . Second , even in situations where the physical environment should point to a clear advantage for one type of agent , the present of the second group can significantly detail the first ’ s success — even if in the early rounds the first group was the more successful of the two . In this model , we can also observe evidence of some disadvantages from early success . If such derailing takes place after enough members of the first group have reached a particular satisfying threshold , they will not change strategies even if there are additional gains to doing so .
Finally , this model contributes to the exploration versus exploitation literature in that it is able to generalize suboptimality in flexibility without relying on costs to explore or change directly . Risks are still embedded in the model , as the agents do not know when they are switching behaviors , what the best behavior actually is , but the actual act of changing bears no cost in the model . Much of the literature on cognition , bounded rationality , and decision making under uncertainty turns on the understanding that it is difficult for individuals to change their behavior ( and this is even more difficult for groups ). This model is able to produce suboptimal outcomes from changing behavior without this stipulation .
Next , I explain the model in detail . I then present evidence for the results I have described . I conclude with a discussion and comments on future research .
The Model
The model is simple . It offers the advantage of generalizability , as it is readily
applicable to a range of social and ecological systems . Of course this comes with the tradeoff that the model on its own cannot offer predictive insights to any specific system , but the simplicity of the model also means the addition of more context-specific variables should not be difficult . Another advantage of
120