Advertisement

How Do Social Norms and Expectations About Others Influence Individual Behavior?

A Quantum Model of Self/Other-Perspective Interaction in Strategic Decision-Making
  • Jakub TesarEmail author
Article
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Social norms can be understood as the grammar of social interaction. Like grammar in speech, they specify what is acceptable in a given context (Bicchieri in The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006). But what are the specific rules that direct human compliance with the norm? This paper presents a quantitative model of self- and the other-perspective interaction based on a ‘quantum model of decision-making’, which can explain some of the ‘fallacies’ of the classical model of strategic choice. By (re)connecting two fields of social science research—norms compliance, and strategic decision-making—we aim to show how the novel quantum approach to the later can advance our understanding of the former. From the cacophony of different quantum models, we distill the minimal structure necessary to account for the known dynamics between the expectations and decisions of an actor. This model was designed for the strategic interaction of two players and successfully tested in the case of the one-shot Prisoners’ Dilemma game. Quantum models offer a new conceptual framework for examining the interaction between self- and other-perspective in the process of social interaction which enables us to specify how social norms influence individual behavior.

Keywords

Social norms Quantum model of decision-making Agent-structure problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The analysis is the outcome of the projects “Quantum Theory of International Relations” (GAUK 904414), and “Human-Machine Nexus and Its Implications for International Order” (UNCE/HUM/037) supported by the Charles University Grant Agency.

References

  1. Accardi, L., Khrennikov, A., & Ohya, M. (2009). Quantum Markov model for data from Shafir–Tversky experiments in cognitive psychology. Open Systems & Information Dynamics, 16(04), 371.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S123016120900027X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2014). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, spring 2014 edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/social-norms/. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.
  5. Bicchieri, C., & Xiao, E. (2009). Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 191.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binmore, K. G. (2005). Natural justice. New York: Oxford University Press. OCLC: 56324785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busemeyer, J. R., & Bruza, P. D. (2014). Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Busemeyer, J. R., Matthew, M. R., & Wang, Z. (2006). In Proceedings of the cognitive science society (Vol. 28)Google Scholar
  9. Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Croson, R. T. A. (1999). The disjunction effect and reason-based choice in games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80(2), 118.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elster, J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gintis, H. (2014). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences, revised paperback edition first printing edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khrennikov, A. Y., & Haven, E. (2009). Quantum mechanics and violations of the sure-thing principle: The use of probability interference and other concepts. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53(5), 378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2009.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Li, S., Wang, Z. J., Rao, L. L., & Li, Y. M. (2010). Is there a violation of Savage’s sure-thing principle in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game? Adaptive Behaviour, 18(3–4), 3.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moreira, C., & Wichert, A. (2017). Are quantum models for order effects quantum? International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 56(12), 4029.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-017-3424-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 1, 1.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0121.Google Scholar
  20. Savage, L. J. (1972). The foundations of statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Dover Publications. OCLC: 390018.Google Scholar
  21. Scharnhorst, K. (2001). Angles in complex vector spaces. Acta Applicandae Mathematica, 69(1), 95.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012692601098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015020741057. Accessed 16 Feb 2018.
  23. Shafir, E., & Tversky, A. (1992). Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90015-T.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sugden, R. (1986). The economics of rights, co-operation, and welfare. New York: B. Blackwell, Oxford [Oxfordshire].Google Scholar
  25. Tversky, A., & Shafir, E. (1992). The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychological Science, 3(5), 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1977). The emergence of norms. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2011). Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theory and Decision, 70(3), 283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9202-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yukalov, V. I., & Sornette, D. (2014). Conditions for quantum interference in cognitive sciences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6(1), 79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations