Skip to main content
Log in

The normativity of Lewis Conventions

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

David Lewis famously proposed to model conventions as solutions to coordination games, where equilibrium selection is driven by precedence, or the history of play. A characteristic feature of Lewis Conventions is that they are intrinsically non-normative. Some philosophers have argued that for this reason they miss a crucial aspect of our folk notion of convention. It is doubtful however that Lewis was merely analysing a folk concept. I illustrate how his theory can (and must) be assessed using empirical data, and argue that it does indeed miss an important aspect of real-world conventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander J. M. (2007) The structural evolution of morality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Armel K. C., Beaumel A., Rangel A. (2008) Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision Making 3: 396–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacharach M. (2006) Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley N. (2007) On collective intentions: Collective action in economics and philosophy. Synthese 157: 141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicchieri C. (2006) The grammar of society. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore K. (1994) Game theory and the social contract, Vol. 1: Playing fair. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M. (1993) Shared intention. Ethics 104: 97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrara M., Varzi A. C. (2001) Ontological commitment and reconstructivism. Erkenntnis 55: 33–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G., Rabin M. (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford V. P., Gneezy U., Rottenstreich Y. (2008) The power of focal points is limited: Even minute payoff asymmetry may yield large coordination failures. American Economic Review 98: 1443–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert M. (1989) On social facts. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert M. (2008) Social convention revisited. Topoi 27: 5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guala F. (2006) Has game theory been refuted?. Journal of Philosophy 103: 239–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2008). An experimental study of conventions and norms. CEEL working paper 8-10. University of Trento.

  • Guala F., Mittone L. (2010) How history and convention create norms: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology 31: 749–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins E. T., Bargh J. A. (1987) Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology 38: 369–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson T., Guala F., Miller T., Summers I. (2012) Limbic and prefrontal activity during conformity and violation of norms in a coordination game. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics 5: 1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz T. (1998) Philosophical intuitions and psychological theory. In: DePaul M., Ramsey W. (eds) Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson F. (1998) From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobe, J., Nichols, S. (eds) (2008) Experimental philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D. K. (1969) Convention: A philosophical study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. K. (1970). How to define theoretical terms. Journal of Philosophy, 67, 427–446. Reprinted in Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lewis, D. K. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50, 249–258. Reprinted in Papers on metaphysics and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Nolan D. (2005) David Lewis. Acumen, Bucks

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit P. (1990) Virtus normativa: Rational choice perspectives. Ethics 100: 725–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichenbach H. (1938) Experience and prediction. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. S. (2010). Shared agency. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shared-agency/.

  • Schelling T. (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. R. (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: Cohen P. R., Morgan J., Pollack M. E. (eds) Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms B. (1996) Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stich S. (1990) The fragmentation of reason. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R. (1986) The economics of rights, cooperation and welfare. Palgrave, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden R. (2000) Team preferences. Economics and Philosophy 16: 174–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela R. (2002) The philosophy of social practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomela R. (2007) The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann E. L., Pizarro D. A., Bloom P. (2008) Varieties of social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 38: 293–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullmann-Margalit E. (1977) The emergence of norms. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward J. (2009) Experimental investigations of social preferences. In: Kincaid H., Ross D. (eds) The Oxford handbook of the philosophy of economics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Guala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guala, F. The normativity of Lewis Conventions. Synthese 190, 3107–3122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0131-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0131-x

Keywords

Navigation