  Indirect reciprocity is a mechanism for cooperation in social dilemma
situations, in which an individual is motivated to help another to acquire a
good reputation and receive help from others afterwards. Ingroup favoritism is
another aspect of human cooperation, whereby individuals help members in their
own group more often than those in other groups. Ingroup favoritism is a puzzle
for the theory of cooperation because it is not easily evolutionarily stable.
In the context of indirect reciprocity, ingroup favoritism has been shown to be
a consequence of employing a double standard when assigning reputations to
ingroup and outgroup members; e.g., helping an ingroup member is regarded as
good, whereas the same action toward an outgroup member is regarded as bad. We
analyze a model of indirect reciprocity in which information sharing is
conducted groupwise. In our model, individuals play social dilemma games within
and across groups, and the information about their reputations is shared within
each group. We show that evolutionarily stable ingroup favoritism emerges even
if all the players use the same reputation assignment rule regardless of group
(i.e., a single standard). Two reputation assignment rules called simple
standing and stern judging yield ingroup favoritism. Stern judging induces much
stronger ingroup favoritism than does simple standing. Simple standing and
stern judging are evolutionarily stable against each other when groups
employing different assignment rules compete and the number of groups is
sufficiently large. In addition, we analytically show as a limiting case that
homogeneous populations of reciprocators that use reputations are unstable when
individuals independently infer reputations of individuals, which is consistent
with previously reported numerical results.
