Abstract
One tenet of classical, rational choice theory as used in non-cooperative game theory is that all players use the same model of rationality for themselves as well as for all other players. The assumption of homogeneous, self-interested actors helps theorists to model how individuals would make choices. One justification for positing homogeneous, rational, egoistic actors has been evolutionary theory (Dawkins, 1976). That is, even if individuals tried out different ways of behaving, only those who made decisions consistent with rational egoistic decisions would maximize returns. In a highly competitive environment, those who maximize returns are more likely to survive in the long run. Long ago, Armen Alchian (1950) made a cogent theoretical argument that, in a highly competitive market, selection pressure would weed out those market participants who did not maximize profits. Extensive experimental studies of behaviour in competitive market settings have supported the use of the classical, rational choice model as the only model of individual choice needed in this setting to make empirically supported predictions (Smith, 1962; Plott, 1986). Thus, continuing to use the classical model when analysing competitive markets has both strong theoretical and empirical support.
We appreciate the support of the National Science Foundation (Grant No. SES 0232072). Juan-Camilo Cardenas expresses his gratitude for a Research and Writing Grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and from the MacArthur Norms and Preferences Network, who funded the field experiments. The enthusiasm of Maria Claudia I.opez, Diana Maya, Ana Maria Roldan, Lilliana Mosquera and Pablo Ramos in the field made the fieldwork possible. We are appreciative of the friendly hospitality of the Colombian villagers who participated in this study. Patty Lezotte once again did a superb job of editing this manuscript for us.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ahn, T. K., Janssen, Marco A. and Ostrom, Elinor (2003) ‘Signals, Symbols, and Human Cooperation’, in Robert W. Sussman and Audrey R. Chapman (eds) The Origins and Nature of Sociality, New York: de Gruyter, 122–39.
Alchian, Armen A. (1950) ‘Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory’, Journal of Political Economy, 58, 3, 211–21.
Bochet, Oliver, Page, Talbot and Putterman, Louis (2002) ‘Communication and Punishment in Voluntary Contribution Experiments’, Working paper, Providence, RI, Brown University. See <http://www.econ.brown.edu/2002/wp2002-29.pdf>.
Bohnet, Iris and Frey, Bruno S. (1999) ‘The Sound of Silence in Prisoner’s Dilemma and Dictator Games’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38, 1, 43–57.
Bolton, Gary E. and Ockenfels, Axel (2000) ‘ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition’, American Economic Review, 90, 166–93.
Bouas, K. S. and Komorita, S. S. (1996) ‘Group Discussion and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 11, 1144–50.
Brosig, Jeannete (2002) ‘Identifying Cooperative Behavior: Some Experimental Results in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 47, 275–90.
Camerer, Colin F. (2003) Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Cardenas, Juan Camilo (2003a) ‘Bringing the Lab to the Field: More Than Changing Subjects’, Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Economic Science Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., June.
Cardenas, Juan Camilo (2003b) ‘Real Wealth and Experimental Cooperation: Evidence from Field Experiments’, Journal of Development Economics, 70, 263–89.
Carpenter, Jeffrey and Cardenas, Juan-Camilo (2003) ‘Experimental Development Economics: A Review of the Literature and Ideas for Future Research’, Working paper, Middlebury, Vt., Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
Casari, Marco and Plott, Charles R. (2003) ‘Decentralized Management of Common Property Resources: Experiments with a Centuries-old Institution’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 217–47.
Chwe, Michael Suk-Young (2001) Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Dawes, Robyn M., McTavish, Jeanne and Shaklee, Harriet (1977) ‘Behavior, Communication, and Assumptions about Other People’s Behavior in a Commons Dilemma Situation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 1, 1–11.
Dawes, Robyn M., van de Kragt, Alphons J. C. and Orbell, John M. (1990) ‘Cooperation for the Benefit of Us — Not Me, or My Conscience’, in Jane Mansbridge (ed.) Beyond Self-Interest, Chicago, III., University of Chicago Press, 97–110.
Dawkins, Richard (1976) The Selflsh Gene, Oxford University Press.
Eckel, Catherine C. and Wilson, Rick K. (2003) ‘The Human Face of Game Theory: Trust and Reciprocity in Sequential Games’, in Elinor Ostrom and James Walker (eds), Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 245–74.
Fischbacher, Urs, Gächter, Simon and Fehr, Ernst (2001) ‘Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment’, Economics Letters, 71, 397–404.
Frank, Robert H. (1988) Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions, New York, W. W. Norton.
Frohlich, Norman and Oppenheimer, Joe (1998) ‘Some Consequences of E-Mail vs. Face-to-Face Communication in Experiments’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, 3, 389–403.
Güth, Werner (1995a) ‘On Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments — A Personal Review’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 3, 329–43.
Güth, Werner (1995b) ‘An Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Cooperative Behavior by Reciprocal Incentives’, International Journal of Game Theory, 24, 323–44.
Güth, Werner and Kliemt, Hartmut (1998) ‘The Indirect Evolutionary Approach: Bridging the Gap between Rationality and Adaptation’, Rationality and Society, 10, 3, 377–99.
Güth, Werner and Yaari, Menahem (1992) ‘An Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Reciprocal Behavior in a Simple Strategic Game’, in Ulrich Witt (ed.), Explaining Process and Change: Approaches to Evolutionary Economics, Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press, 23–34.
Güth, Werner, Kliemt, Hartmut and Peleg, Bezalel (2000) ‘Co-evolution of Preferences and Information in Simple Games of Trust’, German Economic Review, 1, 1, 83–110.
Güth, Werner, Schmittberger, Rolf and Schwarze, Bernd (1982) ‘An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–88.
Isaac, R. Mark, and Walker, James M. (1988). ‘Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contribution Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103, February, 179–200.
Isaac, R. Mark, McCue, Kenneth F. and Plott, Charles R. (1985). ‘Public Goods Provision in an Experimental Environment’, Journal of Public Economics, 26, 51–74.
Kerr, N. L. and Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994) ‘Communication, Commitment, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 3, 513–29.
Kollock, Peter (1998) ‘Social Dilemmas: The Anatomy of Cooperation’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.
Kopelman, Shirli, Weber, J. Mark and Messick, David M. (2002) ‘Factors Influencing Cooperation in Commons Dilemmas: A Review of Experimental Psychological Research’, in Elinor Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, S. Stouick, E. U. Weber (eds), The Drama of the Commons, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 113–57.
Kreps, David, Milgrom, Paul, Roberts, John and Wilson, Robert (1982) ‘Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma’, Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 245–52.
Kurzban, Robert and Houser, Daniel (2003) ‘An Experimental Investigation of Cooperative Types in Human Groups: A Complement to Evolutionary Theory and Simulations’, Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ledyard, John O. (1995) ‘Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research’, in John Kagel and Alvin Roth (eds), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 111–94.
Liebrand, W. B. G. (1984) ‘The Effect of Social Motives, Communication and Group Size on Behavior in an N-Person Multi-Stage Mixed-Motive Game’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 239–64.
McCabe, Kevin and Smith, Vernon L. (2003) ‘Strategic Analysis in Games: What Information Do Players Use?’, in Elinor Ostrom and James Walker (eds), Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 275–301.
McClintock, C. G. and Liebrand, W. B. G. (1988) ‘Role of Interdependence Structure, Individual Value Orientation, and Another’s Strategy in Social Decision Making: A Transformational Analysis’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 396–409.
Messick, D. M. and Brewer, M. B. (1983) ‘Solving Social Dilemmas: A Review’, Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 11–33.
Orbell, John M., van de Kragt, Alphons J. C. and Dawes, Robyn M. (1988) ‘Explaining Discussion-Induced Cooperation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5, 811–19.
Ostrom, Elinor (1998) ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action’, American Political Science Review, 92, 1, March, 1–22.
Ostrom, Elinor and Walker, James (1991) ‘Communication in a Commons: Cooperation without External Enforcement’, in Thomas R. Palfrey, (ed.), Laboratory Research in Political Economy, Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press, 287–322.
Ostrom, Elinor, Gardner, Roy and Walker, James (eds) (1994) Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, Ann Arbor, Mich., University of Michigan Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James and Gardner, Roy (1992) ‘Covenants With and Without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible’, American Political Science Review, 86, 2, June, 404–17.
Plott, Charles R. (1986) ‘Rational Choice in Experimental Markets’, Journal of Business, 59, 301–27.
Rocco, Elena (1998) ‘Trust Breaks Down in Electronic Contexts but Can Be Repaired by Some Initial Face-to-Face Contact’, Proceedings of CHI 1998, New York, ACM Press, 496–502.
Rocco, Elena and Warglien, Massimo (1996) ‘Computer Mediated Communication and the Emergence of “Electronic Opportunism”’, Working paper 1996–01, Trento, Italy, University of Trento.
Sally, David (1995) ‘Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis of Experiments from 1958 to 1992’, Rationality and Society, 7, 58–92.
Scharlemann, Jörn P. W., Eckel, Catherine C., Kacelnika, Alex and Wilson, Rick K. (2001) ‘The Value of a Smile: Game Theory with a Human Face’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 5, October, 617–40.
Schmidt, Karen L. and Cohn, Jeffrey F. (2001) ‘Human Facial Expressions as Adaptations: Evolutionary Questions in Facial Expression Research’, Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44, 3–24.
Simon, Adam and Gorgura, Heather (2003) ‘Say the Magic Word: Effective Communication in Social Dilemmas’, Working paper, University of Washington, Department of Political Science, Seattle.
Smith, Vernon (1962) ‘An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior’, Journal of Political Economy, 70, 111–27.
Walker, James M., Gardner, Roy and Ostrom, Elinor (1990) ‘Rent Dissipation in a Limited-Access Common-Pool Resource: Experimental Evidence’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 19, 203–11.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Juan-Camilo Cardenas, T. K. Ahn and Elinor Ostrom
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cardenas, JC., Ahn, T.K., Ostrom, E. (2004). Communication and Co-operation in a Common-Pool Resource Dilemma: A Field Experiment. In: Huck, S. (eds) Advances in Understanding Strategic Behaviour. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523371_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523371_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-4167-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52337-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)