Self-interested learning is more important than fair-minded conditional cooperation in public-goods games. (17th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N.; Guérin, Claire
• Is Part Of: Evolutionary human sciences. Volume 4(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-10-17
• Subjects: altruism -- behavioural economics -- confusion -- reciprocity -- social preferences; Human evoluation -- Periodicals; Social evolution -- Periodicals; 599.938
• DOI: 10.1017/ehs.2022.45
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2513-843X

Abstract

Abstract: Abstract: Why does human cooperation often unravel in economic experiments despite a promising start? Previous studies have interpreted the decline as the reaction of disappointed altruists retaliating in response to non-altruists (Conditional Cooperators hypothesis). This interpretation has been considered evidence of a uniquely human form of cooperation, motivated by an altruistic concern for equality ('fairness') and requiring special evolutionary explanations. However, experiments have typically shown individuals not only information about the decisions of their groupmates (social information) but also information about their own payoffs. Showing both confounds explanations based on conditional cooperation with explanations based on confused individuals learning how to better play the game (Confused Learners hypothesis). Here we experimentally decouple these two forms of information, and thus these two hypotheses, in a repeated public-goods game. Analysing 616 Swiss university participants, we find that payoff information leads to a greater decline, supporting the Confused Learners hypothesis. In contrast, social information has a small or negligible effect, contradicting the Conditional Cooperators hypothesis. We also find widespread evidence of both confusion and selfish motives, suggesting that human cooperation is maybe not so unique after all.