Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1331–1338 | Cite as

People believe each other to be selfish hedonic maximizers

Brief Report

Abstract

Current computational models of theory of mind typically assume that humans believe each other to selfishly maximize utility, for a conception of utility that makes it indistinguishable from personal gains. We argue that this conception is at odds with established facts about human altruism, as well as the altruism that humans expect from each other. We report two experiments showing that people expect other agents to selfishly maximize their pleasure, even when these other agents behave altruistically. Accordingly, defining utility as pleasure permits us to reconcile the assumption that humans expect each other to selfishly maximize utility with the fact that humans expect each other to behave altruistically.

Keywords

Theory of mind Altruism Rationality Utility Pleasure 

References

  1. Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., & Humphreys, G. (2009). Studies of adults can inform accounts of theory of mind development. Developmental Psychology, 45, 190–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, C. L., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113, 329–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. (Original work published in 1789)Google Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnefon, J. F. (2009). A theory of utility conditionals: Paralogical reasoning from decision-theoretic leakage. Psychological Review, 116, 888–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonnefon, J. F., & Sloman, S. A. (2013). The causal structure of utility conditionals. Cognitive Science, 37, 193–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper, D., & Kagel, J. (2014). Other regarding preferences: A survey of experimental results. In J. H. Kagel & A. E. Roth (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, (in press).Google Scholar
  8. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 287–292. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00128-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernàndez-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360–1366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horner, V., Carter, J. D., Suchak, M., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2011). Spontaneous prosocial choice by chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 13847–13851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 4, 399–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, N., & Mislin, A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 865–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruger, J., & Gilovich, T. (1999). “Naive cynicism” in everyday theories of responsibility assessment: On biased assumptions of bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 743–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Melis, A. P., Warneken, F., Jensen, K., Schneider, A. C., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Chimpanzees help conspecifics obtain food and non-food items. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 278, 1405–1413.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053–1060.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.Google Scholar
  19. Ratner, R. K., & Miller, D. T. (2001). The norm of self-interest and its effects on social action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 5–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Robalino, N., & Robson, A. (2012). The economic approach to “theory of mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2224–2233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scott, R. M., & Baillargeon, R. (2013). Do infants really expect agents to act efficiently? A critical test of the rationality principle. Psychological Science, 24, 466–474.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Slote, M. (2011). Egoism and emotion. Philosophia, 41, 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (2009). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Spillman, L., & Strand, M. (2013). Interest-oriented action. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 85–104.Google Scholar
  25. Steene, M. (2009). Why everyone acts altruistically all the time: What parodying psychological egoism can teach us. Philosophia, 39, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thompson, V. A., Evans, J., St, B. T., & Handley, S. J. (2005). Persuading and dissuading by conditional argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 238–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Whiten, A., & Erdal, D. (2012). The human socio-cognitive niche and its evolutionary origins. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 367, 2119–2129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yoshida, W., Dolan, R. J., & Friston, K. J. (2008). Game theory of mind. PLoS Computational Biology, 4, e1000254.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueToulouseFrance
  2. 2.CLLE, Maison de la rechercheUniversité de Toulouse le MirailToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations