Problem 8 - Cooperation Flashcards
games
-interaction between 2 or more agents each of whom have 2 or more strategies available (which are associated with payoffs that depend on the action of the other person)
Prisoner’s dilemma
- cooperation
- nash equilibrium
- both silent -> one year
- both betray each other -> 5
- only one talks -> 10 for one
Public goods game
- everyone gets money
- each individual decides how much to contribute to the pool
- > pool is later divided and given back
- best collectively rational strategies is to contribute
- best individual strategy is not to contribute
Dictator game
- 2 anonymous players are allotted a sum of money in a one shot interaction
- Player 1 decides how to divide the money between the two
- Player 2 receives allocation, game ends
- pure measure of intrinsic motivation for equal offers
ultimatum game
- 2 anonymous players are allotted a sum of money
- Player 1 decides how to divide the money between the two
- Player 2 accepts/rejects possible offers before hearing the actual offer
- If he/she doesn’t accept, no one gets anything
- both players know in advance the consequences of accepting/rejecting
Third-party punishment game ??
- 2 anonymous players are allotted a sum of money
- Player 1 decides how to divide the money
- Player 2 has no choice
- Player 3 ?
Evolution of cooperation
-downing strategy
factors influencing extent of cooperation (7)
1) consideration of others
2) empathy
3) fear
4) differences in values
5) Trust
6) Generosity
7) Communication
consideration of others - cooperation
- less cooperation when it was known that the other cooperated (from 37% to 16%)
- thinking harder about a task reduces cooperation (more likely to behave fairly when less capacity for thinking)
Empathy
-critical for social functioning and promotes prosocial behavior
-empathic failures
-empathy alone may be insufficient to produce pro-social behavior (esp. when parties differ in status/power)
-
Fear
- of being taken for a sucker (too nice) / being punished for acting in self-interest
- fear is removed -> behave in a greedy fashion
- greed -> stronger effect on behavior than fear
- observing a fair player being punished -> pain-related brain areas are activated
differences in values
- categorization of social value orientation
1) prosocial -> maximise joint gains , equality in outcomes
2) individualists -> maximise own gains
3) competitors -> maximise relative gain - values can be learned
- social values orientations are based on our attachment style, family background, age and experience
trust - key word
- trust leads to increased cooperation
- more likely to trust people with good reputation
- emotions affect trust ratings of others (except for family members)
moralistic punishment
- fosters group cooperation
- punishment of non-cooperators -> motivates them to cooperate
Antisocial punishment
-key word
- punishment of high cooperators
- > destabilizes group cooperation and reduces beneficial effects of moralistic punishment
- to stop high co-operators from looking too good
- force them to cooperate less
- to stop the antisocial punisher from looking selfish in comparison
- the stronger the rule of law/strong norms of civic cooperation = less antioscial punishment
antisocial punishment: do-gooder derogation
- putting down of morally motivated others
- people who help others get criticized and ridiculed for their efforts
- prevents escalation of generosity
- risky tactic as it can make oneself look bad if done poorly
normative theory
punishment of all deviators no matter in which direction
biological markets theory
- organisms can choose partners for cooperative interactions
- > best partners are most able, willing, and available to provide benefits in cooperative interactions
- organisms outbid each other to be chosen as partners
nash equilibrium
- two or more players
- > each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players
- > no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy
tit for tat strategy
- begins with cooperating (nice) and then always copies the action of the other, resulting in punishment of defection and rewarding cooperation
- > Drawback: noise (erroneous , fehlerhaft), which can (unwillingly) lead to a cycle of never ending retaliation (Heimzahlung)
Generosity
- großzügig
- in some situations people are not able to act generously (if it requires resources that they don’t have)
- > this is where communication comes into play
communication
-can solve the problem of noise and can ‘erase’ it
-
Chicken problem
- involves two people drive towards each other
- who first turns the wheel is the chicken
- > 2 nash equilibria:
1) Player 1 drives straight, player 2 turns the wheel
2) Player 2 drives straight, player 1 turns the wheel - related to real live situations including helping behavior, free-riding and the diffusion of responsibility when more than 2 people are involved
Article: economics and greed
-> general conclusion
-Does business school education contribute to the culture of greed?
- > positive relationship between economics education and attitudes toward greed
- perceptions of greed and willingness to engage in (and justify) greedy behavior are malleable
economics and greed
-> study one
do we need to know studies?
psychological models of emotion - appraisal theory
-emotions = adaptive responses elicited based on how a person evaluates his situation
-appraisals are typically related to motivational goals of the person
-
game theoretical models of emotion - simple guilt model
-a player feels guilty to the extent that his actions cause a coplayer to receive less than he expected
anger
- connected to frustration
- > player A blames player B for not cooperating and thus player becomes frustrated and angry
- differences in expectation and outcome -> anger-> drives costly punishment
- fear of punishment/revenge ensures cooperation
article - higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior -results
- upper-class individuals:
- greater resources, freedom, independence
- > increases self-focused social-cognitive tendencies
- worse at identifying others’ emotions
- less generous and altruistic
- Donate smaller proportions of their income to charity
- value their own welfare over the welfare of others
⇒ upper-class people behaved more unethical in naturalistic and laboratory settings ⇒greed is a robust determinant of unethical behavior
Why are upper-class individuals more prone to unethical behavior?
- relative independence from others
- increased privacy in their professions
- > may provide fewer constraints and decreased risk perception
- independent self-view and entitlement reduce attention on the consequences of one’s actions on other
- increases goal focus
The brain and altruism, trust, fairness etc.
- activation in reward-related brain areas
- PFC :
- > cognitive control
- > processing of emotions
- > integration of costs and benefits to resolve conflict between self-interest and other-regarding motives
cognitive control -brain areas (4)
- vmPFC
- ACC- anterior cingulate cortex
- anterior insula
- DLPFC
vmPFC
- crucial role in decision making involving social preferences
- integration of costs and benefits
- lesioned..?
ACC- anterior cingulate cortex
- conflict monitoring
- activity consistent with trade-off between self-interest and prosocial motives
Anterior insula
- activity associated with degree of emotional resentment (Groll) of unfair offers
- stronger activity -> more likely to reject an offer
DLPFC
- affects fairness related behaviors, not judgement
- controls emotional impulse to reject unfair offers
- when out of order -> increases acceptance of unfair offers
reward-related brain areas (4)
- striatum
- nucleus accumbens
- VTA
- Oxytocin
game theory
analyzing possible interactions between people
behavioral game theory
-people are actually more cooperative than game theory predicts
downing strategy
-selfish
-you either start by cooperation OR defection
-
guilt
appraisal : failure to live up to expectations
-> individual wants to make up for failure
simple trust game
- choose to go out/ in game
- if going out -> both get 1|1
- if going in ->
- can choose to share money (2|2)
- can choose to have everything (4|0)
- > other one expects to get money
- > person donates because he/she would feel guilty otherwise
neuro economic approach
- combination of neuroscience and economics
- social
theories of reciprocity and inequity aversion
- subjects prefer mutual cooperation outcomes over defection
- derive a hedonic value
- ventral striatum
social preference theories
- prefer to punish unfair behavior
- rewarding for yourself
- explains altruistic punishment
- PFC
culture
- people in industrialized countries are more cooperative
- punishment behaviors varied
social neuro economics - key words
…
fairness - key word
…
