International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications

The role of perceived intention as a Fast social heuristic for the promotion of collective rationality and increasing human cooperation in an economic game

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Mathematics, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

3 Psychology Department, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In the studies of human cooperation, the problem is always the choice between individual benefit and collective benefit, which is modeled by the game. On the other hand, based on the Dual processing of decision-making, whether cooperative decision-making is type I or type II has been discussed a lot. Some studies consider cooperative decision-making as type 1 and others as type 2. According to some theories, the human self is inter-subjective, and it is created by the interaction between I and Me. The classical model of game theory does not consider it. In this article, we first enter common sense and intersubjectivity into the game theory model and show that a level of estimation of the intention of the opposite player is necessary for cooperation. Then we show that if the individual perceives himself in a joint situation through the knowledge of the opposite player's intention, the cooperative decision-making process is carried out Fast, and therefore it must be considered type 1, and if he considers himself as an individual, his decision-making must be considered type 2. As a result, belonging to a social environment has priority over the type of decision-making.

Keywords

[1] A. Abazari, The social constitution of self for Fichte, J. Philosoph. Invest. Univer. Tabriz 15 (2021), 1–22.
[2] C. Alos-Ferrer and M. Garagnani, The cognitive foundations of cooperation, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 175 (2020), 71–85.
[3] M.E. Bratman, Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together, Oxford University Press, 2013.
[4] V. Brown, An intersubjective model of agency for game theory, Econ. Phil. 36 (2020), 355–382.
[5] D. Costa, J. Arantes, and J. Keating, A dual-process approach to cooperative decision-making under uncertainty, PloS one 17 (2022), e0265759.
[6] H. Duijf, Cooperation, fairness and team reasoning, Econ. Phil. 37 (2021), 413–440.
[7] J.B.T. Evans and K.E. Stanovich, Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate, Perspect. Psycho. Sci. 8 (2013), 223–241.
[8] E. Fehr and K.M. Schmidt, A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation, Quart. J. Econ. 114 (1999), 817–868.
[9] A. Filippin and F. Guala, Group identity as a social heuristic: An experiment with reaction times, J. Neurosc. Psycho. Econ. 10 (2017), 153.
[10] S. Gallagher, Action and Interaction, Oxford University Press, 2020.
[11] M. Gilbert, Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World, Oxford University Press, 2013.
[12] N. Henrich and J.P. Henrich, Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation, Oxford University Press, 2007.
[13] C. Herrmann-Pillath, Beyond dualities in psychology, neuroscience and behavioural economics: Building the foundations of social neuroeconomics on GH Mead, Neurosci. Behav. Econ.: Build. Found. Soc. Neuroecon. GH Mead 2017 (2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3067081 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3067081
[14] C. Herrmann-Pillath, From dual systems to dual function: rethinking methodological foundations of behavioural economics, Econ. Phil. 35 (2019), 403–422.
[15] J. Higgins, Cognising with others in the we-mode: A defence of ‘first-person plural’ social cognition, Rev. Phil. Psycho. 12 (2021), 803–824.
[16] G. Hochman, S. Ayal, and D. Ariely, Fairness requires deliberation: the primacy of economic over social considerations, Front. Psycho. 6 (2015), 747.
[17] J.I. Krueger, Heuristic game theory, Decision 1 (2014), no. 1, 59.
[18] G. Lecouteux, What does “we” want? team reasoning, game theory, and unselfish behaviours, Revue d’econ. Polit. 128 (2018), 311–332.
[19] D.G. Rand, J.D. Greene, and M.A. Nowak, Spontaneous giving and calculated greed, Nature 489 (2012), no. 7416, 427–430.
[20] D.G. Rand and M.A. Nowak, Human cooperation, Trends Cogn. Sci. 17 (2013), 413–425.
[21] D.G. Rand, A. Peysakhovich, G.T. Kraft-Todd, G.E. Newman, O. Wurzbacher, M.A. Nowak, and J.D. Greene, Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation, Nature Commun. 5 (2014), no. 1, 3677.
[22] H.B. Schmid, Plural Action: Essays in Philosophy and Social Science, Springer Science and Business Media, 2009.
[23] H.B. Schmid, The idiocy of strategic reasoning: Towards an account of consensual action, Anal. Kritik 53 (2011), 35–56.
[24] H.B. Schmid, Shared intentionality and the origins of human communication, Salice, A. (Ed.), Intentionality, Philosophia, Munich, 2012, pp. 349—368.
[25] I. Snir, Bringing plurality together: Common sense, thinking and philosophy in Arendt, Southern J. Phil. 53 (2015), no. 3, 362–384.
[26] M. Tomasello, Why We Cooperate, MIT Press, 2009.
[27] M. Tomasello, A Natural History of Human Morality, Harvard University Press, 2016.
[28] D. Tuckett and M. Nikolic, The role of conviction and narrative in decision-making under radical uncertainty, Theory Psycho. 27 (2017), no. 4, 501–523.
[29] P.A. Van Lange, D.P. Balliet, C.D. Parks, and M. Van Vugt, Social Dilemmas: Understanding Human Cooperation, Oxford University Press, 2014.
International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications
Volume 15, Issue 7
July 2024
Pages 33-41
  • Receive Date: 08 July 2022
  • Revise Date: 15 September 2022
  • Accept Date: 27 September 2022