Synthese

pp 1–19 | Cite as

David Lewis in the lab: experimental results on the emergence of meaning

  • Justin Bruner
  • Cailin O’Connor
  • Hannah Rubin
  • Simon M. Huttegger
Article

Abstract

In this paper we use an experimental approach to investigate how linguistic conventions can emerge in a society without explicit agreement. As a starting point we consider the signaling game introduced by Lewis (Convention 1969). We find that in experimental settings, small groups can quickly develop conventions of signal meaning in these games. We also investigate versions of the game where the theoretical literature indicates that meaning will be less likely to arise—when there are more than two states for actors to transfer meaning about and when some states are more likely than others. In these cases, we find that actors are less likely to arrive at strategies where signals have clear conventional meaning. We conclude with a proposal for extending the use of the methodology of experimental economics in experimental philosophy.

Keywords

Signaling Experimental philosophy Meaning Evolution 

References

  1. Alexander, J. (2010). Local interactions and dynamics of rational deliberation. Philosophical Studies, 147(1), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allais, P. M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l’ecole americane. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argiento, A., Pemantle, R., Skyrms, B., & Volkov, S. (2009). Learning to signal: Analysis of a micro-level reinforcement model. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 119, 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, J. A. (2006). Numerical simulations of the Lewis signaling game: Learning strategies, pooling equilibria, and the evolution of grammar. Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences. Paper 54. http://repositories.cdlib.org/imbs/54.
  5. Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A. (2013). Norm manipulation, norm evasion: Experimental evidence. Economics and Philosophy, 29(2), 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bicchieri, C., & Lev-On, A. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: An experimental analysis. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 6(2), 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Binmore, K., McCarthy, J., Ponti, G., Samuelson, L., & Shaked, A. (2002). A backward induction experiment. Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 48–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Kim, Y. G., & Sprinkle, G. B. (1998). Experimental evidence on the evolution of meaning of messages in sender-receiver games. The American Economic Review, 88(5), 1323–1340.Google Scholar
  9. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Kim, Y. G., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2001). Evolution and communication with partial common interest. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(1), 79–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Neumann, G. R., & Savin, N. E. (2002). Learning and communication in sender-receiver games: An econometric investigation. Journal of Applied Economics, 17, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Börgers, T., & Sarin, R. (1997). Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory, 77, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croson, R. (2005). The method of experimental economics. International Negotiation, 10, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise. Estudios Económicos, 8(2), 179–212.Google Scholar
  15. Ernst, Z. (2007). Philosophical issues arising from experimental economics. Philosophy Compass, 2(3), 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economics experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frolich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. (1992). Choosing justice: An experimental approach to ethical theory. Berkeley: California University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hofbauer, J., & Huttegger, S. (2008). Feasibility of communication in binary signaling games. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 254, 843–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holt, C., & Laury, S. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hopkins, E. (2002). Two competing models of how people learn in games. Econometrica, 70(6), 2141–2166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huttegger, S. M. (2007). Evolution and the explanation of meaning. Philosophy of Science, 74, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huttegger, S. M., & Zollman, K. (2010). Dynamic stability and basins of attraction in the sir philip sidney game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 94, 1–8.Google Scholar
  25. Huttegger, S. M., & Zollman, K. J. S. (2011). Signaling games: Dynamics of evolution and learning. Language, games, and evolution (pp. 160–176). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huttegger, S. M., Skyrms, B., Smead, R., & Zollman, K. J. S. (2010). Evolutionary dynamics of Lewis signaling games: Signaling systems versus partial pooling. Synthese, 172(1), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huttegger, S. M., Skyrms, B., Tarrès, P., & Wagner, E. O. (2010). Some dynamics of signaling games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 111, 10873–10880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mehta, J., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1994). The nature of salience: An experimental investigation of pure coordination games. The American Economic Review, 84(3), 658–673.Google Scholar
  30. Muldoon, R., Borgida, M., & Cuffaro, M. (2011). The conditions of tolerance. Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, 11(3), 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Connor, C. (2013). The evolution of vagueness. Erkenntnis, 79, 704–727.Google Scholar
  32. Pawlowitsch, C. (2008). Why evolution does not always lead to an optimal signaling system. Games and Economic Behavior, 63, 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Powell, B., & Wilson, B. (2008). An experimental investigation of hobbesian jungles. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 66, 669–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Skyms, B. (2010). The flow of information in signaling games. Philosophical Studies, 147, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Skyrms, B. (2010). Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith, A. (1761). Considerations concerning the first formation of languages. Appended to the second edition of The theory of moral sentiments.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, A., Skarbek, D., & Wilson, B. (2012). Anarchy, groups, and conflict: an experiment on the emergence of protective associations. Social Choice and Welfare, 39(2), 325–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, V. (1962). An experimental study of competitive market behavior. The Journal of Political Economy, 70(2), 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith, V. (1976). Experimental economics: induced value theory. The American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.Google Scholar
  41. Vanderschraaf, P. (2006). War on peace? a dynamical analysis of anarchy. Economics and Philosophy, 22(2), 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vanderschraaf, P. (2007). Covenants and reputations. Synthese, 157, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wagner, E. O. (2013). The dynamics of costly signaling. Games, 4, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin Bruner
    • 1
  • Cailin O’Connor
    • 2
  • Hannah Rubin
    • 2
  • Simon M. Huttegger
    • 2
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.UC IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations