Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-vmcqm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-13T09:20:09.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Intertemporal bargaining predicts moral behavior, even in anonymous, one-shot economic games1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

George Ainslie*
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa; and Department of Veteran Affairs, 151 VA Medical Center, Coatesville, PA 19320. George.Ainslie@va.govhttp://www.Picoeconomics.org

Abstract

To the extent that acting fairly is in an individual's long-term interest, short-term impulses to cheat present a self-control problem. The only effective solution is to interpret the problem as a variant of repeated prisoner's dilemma, with each choice as a test case predicting future choices. Moral choice appears to be the product of a contract because it comes from self-enforcing intertemporal cooperation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainslie, G. (2005) You can't give permission to be a bastard: Empathy and self-signaling as uncontrollable independent variables in bargaining games. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:815–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2010) The core process in addictions and other impulses: Hyperbolic discounting versus conditioning and framing. In: What is addiction? ed. Ross, D., Kincaid, H., Spurrett, D. & Collins, P., pp. 211–45. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2012) Pure hyperbolic discount curves predict “eyes open” self-control. Theory and Decision 73:334. doi:10.1007/s11238-011-9272-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. W. & Raynor, J. O. (1975) Motivation and achievement. Winston.Google Scholar
Bodner, R. & Prelec, D. (2001) The diagnostic value of actions in a self-signaling model. In: Collected essays in psychology and economics, ed. Brocas, I. & Carillo, J. D., pp. 105–23. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. & Kurki, A. (2004) Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice 119(1):91117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H. (2009) The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McClure, S. M., Ericson, K. M., Laibson, D. I., Loewenstein, G. & Cohen, J. D. (2007) Time discounting for primary rewards. Journal of Neuroscience 27:5796–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monterosso, J. R., Ainslie, G., Toppi-Mullen, P. & Gault, B. (2002) The fragility of cooperation: A false feedback study of a sequential iterated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Economic Psychology 23:437–48.Google Scholar