People usually don't cheat as much in these studies as they could. Since the rational thing to do in such a situation is to cheat all you can (since no-one will ever find out), it follows that people aren't rational.
Take, for example, the studies of Richard Sosis on Israeli Kibbutz members. They measured how much these Kibbutzim would contribute to a common pot in an anonymous game.
The rational amount to contribute is zero. Of course people do contribute, but what Sosis found was that those members who attended public rituals more often contributed more.
In other words, participating in these public rituals made them more irrational, in favour of the group and against their own narrow self interest. That's a good thing for the group, of course.
Now, public rituals are a classic 'costly signal'. They show that you are committed to being a member of the group (for whatever reason) - because there's no other reason to do them. But that doesn't explain why more committed group members contribute more.
One possibility is that they don't believe the experiment is truly anonymous. This is a problem for all studies like this. Another is that it's something to do with religion (perhaps these people think their God is watching them).
But I want to suggest an alternative, altogether weirder explanation. And to do that, we need to talk about why people vote. Voting is, of course, completely irrational. You know that your one vote will never make a difference. And yet people do it in their millions.
If you read a recent post at the ever-excellent Psyblog, you'll know that there's a kind of magical thinking at work here. We vote because we think that the act of voting will actually influence other people to vote the same way (even though we know it's totally anonymous).
The evidence for this comes from work done by George Quattrone and Amos Tversky back in the 1980s - you can read a summary of their study here.
Could it be that the Kibbutzim who are more committed to the group (as signalled by taking part in public rituals) are actually more generous because they are trying to get other group members to do the same?
If so, then this explains their irrational behaviour. They may well believe that the experiment is truly anonymous, but they just can't help acting as if it isn't.
__________________________________________________________________________
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.
This is something I've wondered about.... if people sincerely believe in cosmic principles of justice (for me - Karma, for many God); would it not follow that the rational thing to do would be to act in accordance with their belief in the cosmic principle of justice (CPOJ)
ReplyDeleteI realize one can argue that a belief in a CPOJ is irrational - but if people are acting on sincerely held beliefs, doesn't that make them rational?
When interpreted in this light - it is somewhat (non-exclusively) self-interested.... after all, they don't want to incur the wrath of their CPOJ, but they do want to receive good things from their CPOJ (whether it's God's blessing or good karma).
I put non-exclusively self-interested since they are acting both in self-interest and in a pro-social way (after all, isn't fostering pro-social behavior while appealing to self-interest an underlying theme in CPOJ?).
If so, then this explains their irrational behaviour. They may well believe that the experiment is truly anonymous, but they just can't help acting as if it isn't.
ReplyDeleteThis touches on a problem I have with all these studies where people can cheat or cooperate: The experimenters assume that people know they are anonymous.
But how do they know this? Because they were told so by the experimenter? How do they know the experimenter is telling the truth? (Indeed, sometimes the plot is that they aren't, but that's beside the point here.)
And, even if they do deep down (i.e. rationally) believe that to be the truth, that they are completely anonymous, that may not be enough. We are evolved beings who have never evolved in an environment of anonymity, so - to put it bluntly - people who think we are able to behave 100% rationally are naîve. It is simply never ever going to be understood at the instinctive level, and that's where a lot of our decisions are made, whether we explain them after the fact in some rational way or not.
But I want to suggest an alternative, altogether weirder explanation. And to do that, we need to talk about why people vote. Voting is, of course, completely irrational. You know that your one vote will never make a difference. And yet people do it in their millions.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with this suggestion. This is exactly the wrong thing to say by intellectuals, we should rather encourage people to vote. The more people vote, the more accurate the opinion of the citizens is reflected. Your vote DOES make a difference. I live in Switzerland and there was a very close vote on May 17, 2009. The introduction of biometric passports was accepted with 953'173 yes against 947'493 no. That's a difference of a mere 5680 voters!
I wonder how you came to such an outrageous suggestion?
Disclaimer: I am Swiss and a strong believer in the direct democratic system.
Ced - in America we don't have direct democracy. The electoral colleges have the ability to basically decide elections, and we always have to choose between a douche (Republican) and a terd-sandwich (Democrat).... that's a South Park reference by the way.
ReplyDeleteI really want to live in Switzerland. Is it as awesome as I've been led to believe?
Samuel, yes in economic terms the utility of a altruistic act is (in theory) higher for a believer because they think they will get a reward (from their god or whatever).
ReplyDeleteSo you would think that believers would be more generous in these circumstances, but the interesting thing is that often it doesn't work that way.
Bjørn, yep I agree completely!
ReplyDeleteCeb, I vote in every election and encourage voting, but that doesn't stop it from being irrational!
ReplyDeleteAt the last UK general election, our constituency was one of the closest, with only 417 votes separating the leading candidates. If I hadn't voted, it would've been 416 votes. I needn't have bothered!
I still will of course, in the net one. Most of what we do is irrational, so might as well add voting to the list!
I could tell you about our caring and giving this morning regarding Haiti. Use your imagination.
ReplyDeleteHow was your morning?
David Mc
Matthew 6:2
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
http://cyberspiritcafe.blogspot.com/
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/17668572
Samuel, it's definitely a good country to live in, but certainly has its quirks. High amount of bureaucracy for example, but not as bad as Denmark though.
ReplyDeleteTom, I have troubles following your line of thought regarding voting being irrational.
If so, then this explains their irrational behaviour. They may well believe that the experiment is truly anonymous, but they just can't help acting as if it isn't.
ReplyDeleteWhat about simple conscience? You've maybe heard the old saw that you can judge a person's character by what they do when they think no one's watching. (Late at night, nobody on the street -- do you drop that empty Big Gulp on the ground or do you look for a trashcan?)
Perhaps these people are just following their consciences, their own ethical principles. At any rate, that seems simpler than positing that they think they aren't really anonymous, or fearing God is looking over their shoulder, or even following cosmic principles of justice (though that's a good explanation that probably applies to lots of people).
This kind of bewilderment can give non-theists a bad name you know. David Mc
ReplyDeleteCed, simply that elections are never decided on the basis of a single vote. Since I have only one vote, it makes no difference whether or not I (as an individual) vote. Of course, if everyone thought that way it would be disastrous! Luckily they don't (I don't either).
ReplyDeleteNorth of 49: yes, but the question is why their conscience should work that way? If you accept that the brain evolved, then you have to explain why sometimes it produces actions that seem to run counter to its best interests (i.e. pure altruism).
ReplyDeleteSeveral ideas have been put forward. Group selection is one. The 'by product' idea is another (that it only manifests in situations that didn't occur in our evolutionary past).
A third idea (and one that I prefer) is that it's a learned behaviour. We drill it into our kids as the best way to behave.
Well, Tom, that's exactly the point: everyone knows this, and that is why people vote.
ReplyDeleteIt's similar to saving money, you know the 50 dollars you deposit into your savings account at the end of the month are really not much, but if you do until you're 60, you can end up with 24'000 dollars.
Ced, actually voting is quite different. Every penny you save makes a difference to the final total. That's because the total is a scalar quantity - it can vary almost infinitely, and each penny contributes equally to the final value.
ReplyDeleteThe outcome of an election is binary - either your candidate wins or he/she does not. It's this threshold that means that each vote is not of equal value. In fact, my personal vote is of zero value, because it can never tip the threshold.
"So you would think that believers would be more generous in these circumstances, but the interesting thing is that often it doesn't work that way."
ReplyDeleteWhat if you disaggregate believers based on a) religion or b) some sort of test battery that indicates their perception of God/CPOJ? (If this hasn't been done, don't steal it, grad school isn't far away). :-p
The reason I ask is many people claim to be genuinely religious and yet they often have very varied beliefs about God and human nature.
There may be some underlying variable that can explain why religious people tend to be less generous than non-religious people....
I wouldn't say that religious people are less generous, just that in anonymous lab studies there's no difference. Part of the reason is that it's not beliefs per se that affect behaviour, it's whatever's going through your mind at the time.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you subconsciously prompt people with religious ideas, they then act more generously (that goes for both believers and non-believers).
But the idea that there is a particular religious style or approach that is associated with altruism is an interesting one. There's been a fair amount of research into this, but as far as I know no solid conclusions.
What's more, you immediately run into cause-and-effect problems. Are people altruistic because of their religious style, or do people adopt a particular religious style because they are altruisitic?
Tom, you are oversimplifying things here. In a direct democracy such as my home country, votes are certainly not binary. If a poll closes with only a narrow difference in votes, the politicans will recognize that a large part of the population was not heard at the poll and will adapt their final implementation of decision. If there's a overwhelmingly strong support for a decision, this will also lead politicans to behave much differently.
ReplyDeleteAnd also in general, I do not agree. You say:
It's this threshold that means that each vote is not of equal value.
But that's not true, all the votes play their part in the final result, they have an equal weight. When 20 people vote and 11 people voted yes, it's not the vote of ONE person that made the difference, but all the 11 voters had their will carried out!
I take your point that votes are also, to some extent, opinion polls.
ReplyDeleteBut there's another way of thinking about the threshold. All the way up to the threshold, all the votes count. But over the threshold, none count. OK?
But then, if you think about it, if the threshold isn't reached, then none of the votes count (because it has no effect. So, really, the only time your vote makes a difference is if it's the vote that carries you over the threshold.
Now, in every election, there will be one vote that does this. I suppose you could argue that it's your vote as much as anyone else's.
Hmm, I guess there is a small amount of rationality to it :)
By the way, if you're interested in the psychology of why people vote, there's a series of blogs by the (controversial) psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa on the topic beginning here.
ReplyDeleteWell, Tom, here's another argument against the notion that voting is irrational: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/1032
ReplyDeleteGood one! Yes, that makes a lot of sense. I don't think it can explain why a lot of people vote, since they seem to do so in terms of their own narrow self interest. But does give a rational explanation for voting.
ReplyDelete