Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:11:56.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive requirements for hawk-dove games: A functional analysis for evolutionary design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Tomonori Morikawa ,
James E. Hanley  and
John Orbell
Tomonori Morikawa
Affiliation:
Center for International Education, Waseda University, 1-7-14-404, Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo, Japan goducks1221@hotmail.com
James E. Hanley
Affiliation:
Visiting Scholar, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington IN 47408 james@jhanley.net
John Orbell
Affiliation:
Political Science Department & Institute of Cognitive and Decision Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 jorbell@oregon.uoregon.edu
Get access

Abstract

Like other social animals, humans play adaptively important games, and current evolutionary theory predicts special-purpose, domain-specific cognitive mechanisms for playing such games. We offer a functional analysis of the information requirements for successfully playing one important social game, the “hawk-dove” conflict-of-interest game, developing new graphic conventions for doing so. In particular, we address the orders of recognition necessary for successfully playing such games, showing that there are adaptive advantages of capacities for first, second, third, and fourth such orders, but no more. We suggest that first-order recognition is not only the most basic in analytic terms but is likely to have been the first to evolve, with subsequent orders added later in evolution.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 3 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

1.Jolly, Allison, “Lemur Social Behavior and Primate Intelligence,” Science, 1966, 153:501–6.Google Scholar
2.Trivers, Robert, “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology, March 1971, 46:35–57.Google Scholar
3.Dawkins, Richard and Krebs, John R., “Animal Signals: Information or Manipulation?” in Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., editors (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1978).Google Scholar
4.Premack, D. and Woodruff, G., “Does the Chimpanzee have a ‘Theory of Mind’?”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1978, 4:515–526.Google Scholar
5.Frank, Robert, Passions Within Reason (New York: Norton, 1988).Google Scholar
6.Cosmides, Leda, “The Logic of Social Exchange: Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans Reason?” Cognition, 1989, 31:169–193.Google Scholar
7.Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John, “Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
8.Gigerenzer, Gerd and Hug, Klaus, “Domain Specific Reasoning: Social Contracts, Cheating and Perspective Change,” Cognition, 1992, 43:127–171.Google Scholar
9.Mealey, Linda, Daood, Christopher, and Krage, Michael, “Enhanced Memory for Faces of Cheaters,” Ethology and Sociobiology, 1996, 17(2):119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Smith, John Maynard, Models in Ecology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
11.Smith, John Maynard, “The Theory of Games and the Evolution of Animal Conflicts,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1974, 47:209–221.Google Scholar
12.Smith, John Maynard and Price, G. R., “The Logic of Animal Conflict,” Nature, 1973, 246:15–18.Google Scholar
13.Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, Peter M., and The ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
14.Toda, Masanao, “The Design of a Fungus-Eater: A Model of Human Behavior in an Unsophisticated Environment,” Man, Robot, and Society: Models and Speculations (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, 1982).Google Scholar
15.Rapoport, Anatol, Guyer, Melvin J., and Gordon, David G., The 2 × 2 Game (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1976).Google Scholar
16.Gigerenzer, Gerd, “Domain-Specific Reasoning: Social Contracts and Cheating Detection” in Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World, Gigerenzer, G., editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 223.Google Scholar
17.Krebs, John R. and Dawkins, Richard, “Animal Signals: Mind-Reading and Manipulation” in Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N. B., editors (Oxford and Maiden MA: Blackwell Science, 1984).Google Scholar
18.Schelling, Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960).Google Scholar
19.Trivers, Robert, Social Evolution (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1985), p. 416.Google Scholar
20.Lewis, David K., Convention: A Philosophical Study (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969/1977), p. 52.Google Scholar
21.Chwe, Michael Suk-Young, Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
22.Dennett, Daniel, “The Intentional Stance in Theory and Practice” in Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans, Byrne, R. W. and Whiten, A., editors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) pp. 185–186.Google Scholar
23.Gigerenzer, Gerd, “Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World,” in Evolution and Cognition, Stich, S., editor (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar