...
首页> 外文期刊>Theory and Decision >A choice for 'me' or for 'us'? Using we-reasoning to predict cooperation and coordination in games
【24h】

A choice for 'me' or for 'us'? Using we-reasoning to predict cooperation and coordination in games

机译:选择“我”还是“我们”?使用我们推理预测游戏中的合作与协调

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Cooperation is the foundation of human social life, but it sometimes requires individuals to choose against their individual self-interest. How then is cooperation sustained? How do we decide when instead to follow our own goals? I develop a model that builds on Bacharach (in: Gold, Sugden (eds) Beyond individual choice: teams and frames in game theory, 2006) 'circumspect we-reasoning' to address these questions. The model produces a threshold cost/benefit ratio to describe when we-reasoning players should choose cooperatively. After assumptions regarding player types and beliefs, we predict how the extent of cooperation varies across games. Results from two experiments offer strong support to the models and predictions herein.
机译:合作是人类社会生活的基础,但有时需要个人选择违背自己个人利益的选择。那么如何维持合作?我们如何决定何时应遵循自己的目标?我开发了一个基于Bacharach(在个人选择之外:Gold,Sugden(eds):游戏理论中的团队和框架,2006年)建立的模型,以“周全我们的理由”来解决这些问题。该模型产生一个阈值成本/收益比,以描述我们所理性的参与者何时应该合作选择。在对玩家类型和信念进行假设之后,我们预测了不同游戏之间合作程度的变化。来自两个实验的结果为本文的模型和预测提供了有力的支持。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号