Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

The signal-burying game can explain why we obscure positive traits and good deeds


People sometimes make their admirable deeds and accomplishments hard to spot, such as by giving anonymously or avoiding bragging. Such ‘buried’ signals are hard to reconcile with standard models of signalling or indirect reciprocity, which motivate costly pro-social behaviour by reputational gains. To explain these phenomena, we design a simple game theory model, which we call the signal-burying game. This game has the feature that senders can bury their signal by deliberately reducing the probability of the signal being observed. If the signal is observed, however, it is identified as having been buried. We show under which conditions buried signals can be maintained, using static equilibrium concepts and calculations of the evolutionary dynamics. We apply our analysis to shed light on a number of otherwise puzzling social phenomena, including modesty, anonymous donations, subtlety in art and fashion, and overeagerness.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The signal-burying game.
Fig. 2: Evolutionary simulations are in line with the equilibrium conditions for burying.
Fig. 3: Evolutionary dynamics of buried signals.
Fig. 4: A comparison of burying with classical signalling.
Fig. 5: Burying equilibria in a model with multiple burying devices.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Big Charitable Gifts: Where Donors Have Given $1 Million or More (The Chronicle of Philanthropy, accessed 4 April 2018);

  2. Maimonides, M. The Mishneh Torah (Rambam/Maimonides and Moznaim Publishers, New York, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314, 1560–1563 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. Human cooperation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 117, 413–425 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hilbe, C., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. Partners and rivals in direct reciprocity. Nat. Human Behav. (2018); erratum (2018).

  6. Sigmund, K. The Calculus of Selfishness (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010).

  7. Ohtsuki, H. & Iwasa, Y. How should we define goodness? Reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. J. Theor. Biol. 231, 107–120 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spence, M. Job market signaling. Q. J. Econ. 87, 355–374 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Grafen, A. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144, 517–546 (1990).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Banerjee, R. The development of an understanding of modesty. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 18, 499–517 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berger, J. & Ward, M. Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. J. Consum. Res. 37, 555–569 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C. & Drèze, X. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. J. Mark. 74, 15–30 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitchurch, E., Wilson, T. D. & Gilbert, D. T. “He loves me, he loves me not…” Uncertainty can increase romantic attraction. Psychol. Sci. 22, 172–175 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bar-Anan, Y., Wilson, T. D. & Gilbert, D. T. The feeling of uncertainty intensifies affective reactions. Emotion 9, 123–127 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pinker, S. How the Mind Works (Norton and Company, New York, NY, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  16. DeScioli, P. & Kurzban, R. Mysteries of morality. Cognition 112, 281–299 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, D. D. P. & Fowler, J. H. The evolution of overconfidence. Nature 477, 317–320 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoffman, M., Yoeli, E. & Nowak, M. A. Cooperate without looking: Why we care what people think and not just what they do. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1727–1732 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffman, M., Yoeli, E. & Navarrete, C. D. in The Evolution of Morality (eds Shackelford, T. K. & Hansen, R. D.) 289–316 (Springer, New York, NY, 2016).

  20. Spence, M. Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 434–458 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bénabou, R. & Tirole, J. Incentives and prosocial behavior. Am. Econ. Rev. 96, 1652–1678 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Holmström, B. Managerial incentive problems: a dynamic perspective. Rev. Econ. Stud. 66, 169–182 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feltovich, N., Harbaugh, R. & To, T. To cool for school? Signalling and countersignalling. RAND J. Econ. 33, 630–649 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harbaugh, R., & To, T. False Modesty: When Disclosing Good News Looks Bad Working Paper (2005).

  25. Carbajal, J. C., Hall, J. & Li, H. Inconspicuous Conspicuous Consumption Working Paper no. 38 (Peruvian Economic Association, 2015).

  26. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cho, I.-K. & Kreps, D. M. Signaling games and stable equilibria. Q. J. Econ. 102, 179–221 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Henrich, J. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2016).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Traulsen, A. & Hauert, C. in Reviews of Nonlinear Dynamics and Complexity (ed. Schuster, H. G.) 25–61 (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2009).

  30. Veller, C. & Hayward, L. K. Finite-population evolution with rare mutations in asymmetric games. J. Econ. Theory 162, 93–113 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kandori, M., Mailath, G. J. & Rob, R. Learning, mutation, and long run equilibria in games. Econometrica 61, 29–56 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fudenberg, D., Nowak, M. A., Taylor, C. & Imhof, L. A. Evolutionary game dynamics in finite populations with strong selection and weak mutation. Theor. Popul. Biol. 70, 352–363 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank B. Burum, J. Jordan and E. Yoeli for insightful discussions and constructive feedback, and A. Ferdowsian for his help with setting up the simulations. This work was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and by the Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-16-1-2914 (M.A.N.). C.H. acknowledges generous support from the ISTFELLOW programme and by the Schrödinger scholarship of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) J3475. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed to all aspects of this research programme. If some authors contributed more to some aspects, they chose to bury this signal.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Moshe Hoffman, Christian Hilbe or Martin A. Nowak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publishers note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–4, Supplementary Notes, Supplementary References 1–2

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoffman, M., Hilbe, C. & Nowak, M.A. The signal-burying game can explain why we obscure positive traits and good deeds. Nat Hum Behav 2, 397–404 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing