scholarly journals Emotion and intergroup cooperation: How verbal expressions of guilt, shame, and pride influence behavior in a social dilemma

Author(s):  
Samuel J. Nunney ◽  
Job Schalk ◽  
Antony S. R. Manstead
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Seyhun Saral

Conditional cooperation has been a common explanation for the observed cooperation, and its decline in social dilemma experiments. Numerous studies showed that most of the experimental subjects can be categorized into three types: conditional cooperators, self-maximizers and hump-shaped (triangle) cooperators. In this study, I investigate conditional strategy types and their role on the emergence of cooperation and their evolutionary success. For this purpose, I use an extension of the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game. The agents are characterized by their initial move and their conditional responses to each level of cooperation. By using simulations, I estimate the likelihood of cooperation for different probability of continuations.I show that, when the continuation probability is sufficiently large, high levels cooperation is achieved. In this case, the most successful strategies are those who employ an all-or-none type of conditional cooperation, followed by perfect conditional cooperators. In intermediate levels of continuation probabilities, however, hump-shaped contributor types are the ones that are most likely to thrive, followed by imperfect conditional cooperators. Those agents cooperate in a medium level of cooperation within themselves and each other. The results explain the existence of hump-shaped type of cooperators with a purely payoff-based reasoning, as opposed to previous attempts to explain this strategy with psychological mechanisms.


Author(s):  
Jason Hanna

This chapter considers libertarian paternalism, or “nudging,” as championed by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. It focuses especially on the objection that such intervention is wrongly manipulative. The chapter begins by arguing that the charge of manipulation is most likely to be made against preference-shaping paternalism, which aims to influence behavior by operating on a person’s desires from the inside. It then argues that manipulation typically involves one person’s affecting another person’s deliberation for the worse: the victim of manipulation is typically led to act on bad reasons or ignore or downplay relevant considerations. This rough account of manipulation, it is argued, vindicates most of the preference-shaping strategies favored by Thaler and Sunstein. The chapter concludes by examining more problematic means of influence, such as subliminal messaging, and argues that they do not pose any distinctive threat to a pro-paternalist view.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document