Reading Henrich, Heine, and Norenzayan, The weirdest people in the world? Fascinating stuff…
What follows are some reflections on whether it’s possible to test some of the claims I made in an earlier post about the social preferences associated with modernity among a population of American university students…the new material is in bold…
1. Now: Tied altruism (valuing to some degree the additional social value provided by work and/or leadership) and competitiveness (wanting to be ahead of the other player) lead to choice of "work" (or "lead") over "don't work" (or "follow"). Positive individual consequence: The altruistic-competitive type gets to lead instead of the egoist. Positive social welfare consequence: Positive externalities from higher level of work effort.
Then: Egoism. Social welfare consequences: Lower level of work effort than with altruistic-competitive social preferences, fewer positive externalities.
How to test? Could test to see whether work effort is higher in a game with positive externalities from leadership…scenario could be that experimenter donates some money to charity when players work to lead and more money when they coordinate on the optimal leadership-following combination.
Also, could test to see whether altruism and competitiveness are in fact positively associated at the individual level.
PD—pro-social altruism Schelling—pro-social competitiveness
(anti-social egoism and competitiveness) (sub-optimal egoism and altruism)
2, 2 0,3 3,3 1,0
3,0 1,1 0,1 2,2
Coventry—anti-social altruism Stag Hunt--anti-social competitiveness
(pro-social egoism and competitiveness) (sub-optimal egoism and altruism)
1,1 0,3 3,3 0,1
3,0 2,2 1,0 2,2
Rat Trust—anti-social competitiveness
(optimal egoism and altruism)
3, 3 1,2
2,1 0,0
Hypothesis: There is a type that is simultaneously ALT, COMP, and PRO-SOC. Playing ALT in PD will be positively associated with playing COMP in Schelling, EGO-COMP in Coventry, and EGO-ALT in Rat trust.
2. Now: Egoism with respect to non-nuclear family. Positive social welfare consequence: Work and leadership not inhibited by shame at surpassing (or equaling) a member of one's in-group.
Then: Shame with respect to surpassing a member of an in-group. Social welfare consequences: Reduced level of work and leadership in leadership games.
How to test: a) Coventry played with parents or older family members in reality or hypothetically. Hypothesis: There will be a problem with suboptimal altruism. b) Coventry played with other students hypothetically or for money. Hypothesis: Compared to the real or hypothesized game with family members, there will be no problem with suboptimal altruism. c) Coventry played with cousins or other extended family members in reality or hypothetically. Hypothesis: There will be no major problem with suboptimal altruism. d) Coventry played with siblings. Not sure about this one…
3. Now: Situational, merit-based leadership. Shame at failing to maximize total returns to players and society by following the lead of the other when that is optimal. Positive social welfare consequence: More social welfare optima are reached.
Then: Ascribed lead and follow roles based on factors such as age, gender, etc.--altruism, competitiveness, and shame associated with adherence to these roles. Social welfare consequences: Coordination on lead-follow readily achieved in leadership games; poor incentives for work and enterprise.
How to test: Leadership games (BOTS, Leadership, etc.) with no optimum lead-follow combination versus leadership games with an optimum lead-follow combination. Prediction is that people will be impelled by shame and will coordinate to a fair degree on the optimal combination regardless of gender or other cues that can serve as a focal point for one player leading and another following. In a game with no optimal combination, prediction is that people will use a neutral focal point (such as whose name is listed first). No clear prediction on whether contemporary American college students will use ethically charged categories such as gender and ethnicity as cues or not.