Cooperation Collapse in the Harmony Game: Revisiting Scodel and Minas Through Evolutionary Game Theory

Between 1959 and 1962, Alvin Scodel, J. Sayer Minas, and colleagues conducted some of the earliest laboratory studies of strategic interaction using non-zero-sum games. Working at the margins of economics in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, they documented a striking pattern: subjects frequently chose options that reduced an opponent’s payoff by more than their own, even when mutual cooperation was both individually and collectively optimal. These results—especially the behavior observed in their so-called Game H4, a Harmony Game in which cooperation strictly dominated defection—anticipate a central insight of evolutionary game theory: what matters for adaptation is relative payoff, not absolute gain. This essay reinterprets the Scodel–Minas experiments through a Darwinian lens, arguing that they provide an early empirical challenge to Nash-equilibrium reasoning and to models that evaluate strategies solely in terms of absolute utility. By reconstructing the H4 payoff structure and embedding it within a simple evolutionary framework, I show how small levels of “competitive” behavior can destabilize cooperative equilibria that appear self-evident under standard assumptions. I then revisit three later “puzzles” in the evolution of cooperation—altruistic punishment, the fragility of “win–win” treaties, and rejections in ultimatum bargaining—to ask how differently they might have been framed had the Scodel–Minas findings been part of the canonical experimental literature. Rather than treating these phenomena as surprising anomalies, a historically informed, relative-payoff perspective suggests that they could have been recognized much earlier as natural expressions of an already documented pattern.