The ultimatum game, as discussed last week, may be used to analyse individual behaviours but does not capture the essence of social dilemmas; the conflict between individual self interest and the collective interest of the group. This 'conflict' is also looked at through game theory scenarios in the laboratory, but with different games: the prisoners dilemma and the public goods games. In these scenarios there is conflict between the collective rational behaviour and the individual rational behaviour. In real life, consider a 'bring your own bottle' party; it is in the collective interest for each individual to bring a bottle, however I may think that as everyone else will bring a bottle I can 'get away' with not forking out and I can drink what someone else brings. I am of course assuming that no one else will have had the same idea because if they have its going to be a 'dry' party.
The notion of putting the groups interests ahead of ones own is not new - "...that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." (John 11: 49-50), although Mr Spock's version is probably better remembered, "The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few" (Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn). This Vulcan ideology would appear to lead to the expiration of social dilemmas however, continuing with the Treky analogy, the Collective that is the Borg is an extreme version of behaviour that results in the loss of individuality.
Leaving science fiction behind and getting back to real science... people on the whole have a vested interest in 'self' and this is reflected in their behaviour. Evolutionary theories have been suggested to explain why this might be.
Someone mentioned the 'Selfish Gene' (Dawkins, R. 1976) as an explanation of altruism at the individual (not collective) level. The idea here being that genes that serve the individuals own self interests are passed on, these are not necessarily beneficial to the larger population. Consequently individuals may behave in what appears to be irrational behaviours in order to ensure the survival of their genes. Interesting aside: Robert Trivers who co-wrote the article on fluctuating asymmetry (end of semester coursework) provided the forward to the original publication of Dawkins book.
Back to my party...something else I didn't consider was that I will be throwing a birthday party later in the year and, being a poor student, will request that guests 'bring a bottle'. The knock on effect of me not taking a bottle to my friends party is that my friend (and probably others) won't bring one to mine. Reciprocity theories offer an evolutionary theory that cooperative behaviour may be influenced by the probability of future mutual interactions. Robert Trivers (1971) suggested that direct reciprocity can lead to the evolution of cooperation between 2 players where the options are to cooperate or defect, provided the chances of another encounter between the players is greater than the cost-benefit of the original game outcome. Indirect reciprocity is achieved through reputation, for example, in an isolated encounter with John, Peter is helpful; this action is noted by observers who ascribe Peter as a helpful person; when at a later date Peter needs help, it is given as a result of the reputation he has gained by helping John. This 'reputation' effect helps to explain why people cooperate with others on a larger scale than 2 player games.
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) suggests that we identify self as a product of our group membership and, group membership is an important predictor of peoples social dilemma behaviour. If an individual highly identifies with their group they are likely to behave in a manner which benefits the group as that reflects upon themselves. Equally when there is intergroup competition, cooperation between groups will be less frequent, however intragroup cooperation increases with a decrease in social loafing. Most people have multiple group memberships for example, family, gender, ethnicity, occupation and football team. Surely then there would be occasions where 'clashes' of group membership influence social dilemma behaviour?
Unlike the Borg, people are individuals with their own needs and wants although collectivist culture would seem to predict more cooperative behaviour. Unlike Mr Spock we do not have a Genesis planet to ensure our survival, and unlike the Apostle John few of us have the spiritual strength to sacrifice our individual desires for the good of the collective whole. Which could lead to a lengthy discussion of martyrdom 'v' terrorism, which I have no intention of pursuing!
Again, a good posting.
ReplyDelete