Despite a large body of experimental data demonstrating consistent group outcomes in social dilemmas, a close look at individual behavior at the micro level reveals a more complicated story. From round to round, individual behavior appears to be almost random. Using a combination of formal deduction and agent-based simulations, we argue that any theory of individual choice that accounts for the observed behavior of real people is likely to require 1) premises of probabilistic choice, 2) preferences that are a function of others’ previous behavior (i.e., context dependent), and 3) preferences that are other-regarding rather than simply self-interested. We present a model that fits the requirements.
Ahn TK, Ostrom E. and Walker JM ( 2003) Heterogeneous preferences and collective action. Public Choice117: 295-314.
2.
Arifovic J. and Ledyard J. ( 2008) A behavioral model for mechanism design: individual evolutionary learning. Mimeo, working paper, Caltech.
3.
Arifovic J. and Ledyard J. ( 2009) Individual evolutionary learning, other-regarding preferences, and the voluntary contributions mechanism. Mimeo, working paper, Caltech.
4.
Cain M. ( 1998) An experimental investigation of motives and information in the prisoners’ dilemma game. In: Skvoretz J and Szmatka J (eds) Advances in Group Processes. New York: JAI Press, 133-60.
5.
Charness G. and Rabin M. ( 2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics117(3): 817-869.
6.
Coughlin P. ( 1986) Probabilistic voting models. In: Kotz S and Johnson N (eds) Encyclopedia of the Statistical Sciences. New York: Wiley, vol. 7.
7.
Cox JC, Sadiraj K. and Sadiraj V. ( 2001) A theory of competition and fairness without equity aversion . Paper presented at the International Meetings of the Economics Society of America, Barcelona, Spain, June.
8.
Damasio A. ( 1999) The Feeling of What Happens. New York : Harcourt Brace and Company.
9.
Dibble C. ( 2006) Computational laboratories for spatial agent-based models . In: Tesfatsion L and Judd KL (eds) Handbook of Computational Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland, vol. 2, 1511-1548.
10.
Edelman GM ( 1992) Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind . New York: Basic Books.
11.
Fehr E. and Schmidt KM ( 1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics114: 817-868.
12.
Fischbacher U. and Gaechter S.(2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods. American Economic Review100 (1): 541-556.
13.
Friedman M. ( 1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 3-43.
14.
Frohlich N. ( 1974) Self-interest or altruism: what difference? Journal of Conflict Resolution18(1): 55-73.
15.
Frohlich N. and Oppenheimer JA, with Bond P. and Boschman I. ( 1984) Beyond economic man. Journal of Conflict Resolution28: 3-24.
16.
Frohlich N. and Oppenheimer JA ( 1996) Experiencing impartiality to invoke fairness in the n-PD: some experimental results. Public Choice86: 117-135.
17.
Frohlich N. and Oppenheimer JA ( 2003) Optimal policies and socially oriented behavior: some problematic effects of an incentive compatible device. Public Choice117(3-4): 273-293.
18.
Frohlich N. and Oppenheimer JA ( 2006) Skating on thin ice - cracks in the public choice foundation . Journal of Theoretical Politics18(3): 235-266.
19.
Frohlich N., Oppenheimer JA and Kurki A. ( 2004) Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice119(1-2): 91-117.
20.
Frohlich N., Oppenheimer JA and Moore B. ( 2001) Some doubts about measuring self-interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization46(3): 271-290.
21.
Green DP and Shapiro I. ( 1994) Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
22.
Gunnthorsdottir A., Houser D., Mccabe K. and Ameden H. ( 2001) Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments. Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpex/0401001.html
23.
Hempel CG ( 1965) Aspects of Scientific Explanation. New York: Macmillan Free Press.
24.
Isaac RM and Walker JM ( 1988) Communication and free-riding behavior: the voluntary contribution mechanism. Economic Inquiry26(4): 585-608.
25.
Isaac RM, Walker JM and Williams A. ( 1994) Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods: experimental evidence utilizing very large groups. Journal of Public Economics54: 1-36.
26.
Janssen MA and Ahn TK ( 2006) Learning, signaling, and social preferences in public good games. Ecology and Society11(2): 21. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art21/
27.
Kahneman D. and Tversky A. ( 1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263-291.
28.
Ledyard JO ( 1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In: Kagel JH and Roth AE (eds) The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 111-194.
29.
Mackie G. ( 2003) Democracy Defended. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Mueller D. ( 2003) Public Choice III. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Nola R. ( 2004) Pendula, models, constructivism and reality. Science and Education13: 349-377.
32.
Olson M. ( 1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge : Harvard University Press.
33.
Ostrom E. and Walker J. ( 1991) Communication in a commons, cooperation without external enforcement. In: Palfrey TR (ed.) Laboratory Research in Political Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 287-322.
34.
Ostrom E., Walker J. and Gardner R. ( 1992) Covenants with and without a sword: self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review86(2): 404-417.
35.
Palfrey TR and Prisbrey JE ( 1996) Altruism, reputation and noise in linear public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics61: 409-427.
36.
Rabin M. ( 1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics . American Economic Review83(5): 1281-1302.
37.
Regenwetter M., Dana J. and Davis-Stober CP ( 2008) Transitivity of preferences. Working paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
38.
Tatara E., North MJ, Howe TR, Collier NT and Vos JR ( 2006) An introduction to repast modeling by using a simple predator-prey example. Proceedings of the Agent 2006 Conference on Social Agents: Results and Prospects. Argonne: Argonne National Laboratory.
39.
Valavanis S. ( 1958) The resolution of conflict when utilities interact. Journal of Conflict Resolution2: 156-169.
40.
Wendel S. and Oppenheimer J.(2010) An agent-based analysis of context-dependent preferences in voluntary contribution games with agent-based modeling. Journal of Economic Psychology31(3): 269-284.
