Joint commitment was argued to "make our social world" (Gilbert, 2014) and to separate us from other primates. 'Joint' entails that neither of us promises anything, unless the other promises as well. When we need to coordinate for the best mutual outcome, any commitment is beneficial. However, when we are tempted to free-ride (i.e. in social dilemmas), commitment serves no obvious purpose. We show that a reputation system, which judges action in social dilemmas only after joint commitment, can prevent free-riding. Keeping commitments builds trust. We can selectively enter joint commitments with trustworthy individuals to ensure their cooperation (since they will now be judged). We simply do not commit to cooperate with those we do not trust, and hence can freely defect without losing the trust of others. This principle might be the reason for pointedly public joint commitments, such as marriage. It is especially relevant to our evolutionary past, in which no mechanisms existed to enforce commitments reliably and impartially (e.g. via a powerful and accountable government). Much research from anthropology, philosophy and psychology made the assumption that past collaborations were mutually beneficial and had little possibilities to free-ride, for which there is little support. Our evolutionary game theory approach proves that this assumption is not necessary, because free-riding could have been dealt with joint commitments and reputation.

翻译：暂无翻译