Cooperating for reward
humans have an overall preference for pro social behaviour- it is rewarded by our reward system.
Cooperating for higher decision utility
Economic theories of social preferences
- when deciding to act pro social we have the future utility in mind -
Prosocial cooperation behaviour is reactive behaviour
Axelrode ( 1984)
Says our behaviour in social situations started out being rational and changed over time becoming more pro social.
The Scientist Axelrode did run a computer program on the prisoners dilemma- after several generations in the game the behaviour changed to a prosocial one.
–> those were the three strategies that were discovered :
The downing strategy (first assumes that the other player does not respond to ones action and then updating that assumption based on the actual responses)
Tit for tat (begins with cooperation and then copies the other player´s actions)
TFT + 1 (TFT but one time more forgiving)
TFT turned out to be mathematically beneficial. It had the most offspring over the long run.
theory of reciprocity and inequity aversion
People prefer cooperation over disloyal behaviour
–> although disloyal behaviour would sometimes be better.
reciprocal fairness
- people value kind intentions and punish hostile intentions.
Cooperation in the ultimatum game
- ultimatum game is a decision making game in which two parties bargain over an amount of money.
- due to the expected utility and the analytical game theory and the rational choice theory people would accept any offer as responder and offer the lowest amount as proposers.
- Both parties can not communicate with one another - Is This true ?
- more cooperation exists, because the proposer acts out of fear of getting his offer rejected.
- The responder does accept less often because of the inequity aversion and punishes violations of social norms.
Dictator game is also a game where two parties bargain over money with the difference that the responder is not able to reject.
Cooperation in the prisoners dilemma
two criminals of the same terror organisation are arrested and is in solitary confinement. The prisoners are not allowed to talk to one another.
f A and B each betray the other, each of them serves two years in prison
If A betrays B but B remains silent, A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison
If A remains silent but B betrays A, A will serve three years in prison and B will be set free
If A and B both remain silent, both of them will serve only one year in prison (on the lesser charge).
- the most beneficial outcome for both parties would be that people focus on joint cooperation.
However this is not the case. Most people do not cooperate for the most part of the game and act in joint defection.
People cooperate when they have experience in the game.
Cooperation in the public goods game or ressource allocation task
- participants of this game are provided with an endowment and are asked to decide whether to invest their money into a pool of ressources.
- this pool gets than evenly devided among all participants.
- when no one pays into the pool of ressources the ressources collapse.
- as soon as the punishment rool for unsocial behaviour is introduced, the
Perspective taking as influence on cooperation
- when people guessed what the response of the other player would be they were less cooperative, did deceive more
Culture as influence on cooperation
- people from small scale societies ( smaller villages) are more cooperative
- some of this societies trade more on markets than others
- in larger scale industrialiced societies the cooperations are managed by contracts.
knowing that the partner will cooperate as influence on cooperation
- knowing the partner will cooperate reduces the likelihood of one cooperating.
fear and greed as influence on cooperation
- fear is a strong motivator to cooperate ( fear of punishment, not being repected by the others, fear of the selfishness of the others)
- greed is an even stronger motivator which comes into play. ( people act more selfish, deceive more often, people offer less)
thinking about the future
- increases the likelihood of a person cooperating.
Values as influence on cooperation
- people differ in their social orientation
- people that have a more prosocial orientation are more prawn to behaviour that promotes equity and joint gains.
–> this prosocial orientation is developed throughout their upbringing ( by coming from larger families ), having to share more
- further those values can be primed.
Communication as influence on cooperation
- functions to increase or maintain trust
- communication allows even parties that do not blindly trust each other to share their interests and cooperate.
Trust as influence on cooperation
- the more trust someone has in the other party the more likely this person is to cooperate with the other party
Good reputation as influence on cooperation
-
Appearance as influence on cooperation
Nudging as influence on cooperation
Emotions as influence on cooperation
Punishment as influence on cooperation
Nash equilibrium
a point in a game where no member can change their strategy without loosing.
