Skip to main content
Log in

How can “cheap talk” yield coordination, given a conflict?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

ChickenHawk is a social-dilemma game that distinguishes uncoordinated from coordinated cooperation. In tests with players belonging to a culturally homogeneous population, natural-language “cheap talk” led to efficient coordination, while nonlinguistic signaling yielded uncoordinated altruism. In a subsequent test with players from a moderately more heterogeneous population nearby, the “cheap talk” condition still produced better coordination than other signaling conditions, but at a lower level and with fewer acts of altruism overall. Implications are: (1) without language, even willing cooperators coordinate poorly; (2) given a sufficiently homogeneous social group, language can coordinate cooperation in the face of opportunities for anonymous defection; (3) coordination therefore depends not on merely a general propensity to cooperate but on the overlap of social identities, which are always costly to acquire and maintain. So far as linguistic variation establishes how much social identities overlap, natural-language “cheap talk” is self-insuring, suggesting that linguistic variation is itself adaptive.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker M (2004) Linguistic difference and language design. Trends Cogn Sci 7:349–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt H, Hauert C, Sigmund K (2003) Punishment and reputation in spatial public goods games. Proc R Soc Lon B 270:1099–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer C (2003) Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Kings-Casas B, Tomlin D, Anen C, Camerer C, Quartz S, Montague P (2005) Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science 308:78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komarova N, Nowak M (2003) Language, learning, and evolution. In: Christiansen M, Kirby S (eds) Language evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 317–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller A (1976) The crucible. Penguin Plays, New York City

  • Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck H (2002) Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Nature 415:424–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak M, Sigmund K (1998) Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature 393:573–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker S (1994) The language instinct. Harper Collins, New York City––(1998) Words and rules. Lingua 106:219–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sally D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958–1992. Ration Soc 7:58-92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A, Zahavi A (1997) The handicap principle. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to my undergraduate research assistants, Jeffrey Barth and Carrie Robinson, for administering the classroom replications, and to Doug Jones, of the University of Utah, for alerting me to Baker’s work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Jeffreys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jeffreys, M. How can “cheap talk” yield coordination, given a conflict?. Mind & Society 7, 95–108 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-007-0042-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-007-0042-6

Keywords

Navigation