“Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies
Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis, Richard McElreath, Michael Alvard, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Natalie Smith Henrich, Kim Hill, Francisco Gil-White, Michael Gurven, Frank W. Marlowe & John Q. Patton
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):795-815 (2005)
| Abstract | Researchers from across the social sciences have found consistent deviations from the predictions of the canonical model of self-interest in hundreds of experiments from around the world. This research, however, cannot determine whether the uniformity results from universal patterns of human behavior or from the limited cultural variation available among the university students used in virtually all prior experimental work. To address this, we undertook a cross-cultural study of behavior in ultimatum, public goods, and dictator games in a range of small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of economic and cultural conditions. We found, first, that the canonical model – based on self-interest – fails in all of the societies studied. Second, our data reveal substantially more behavioral variability across social groups than has been found in previous research. Third, group-level differences in economic organization and the structure of social interactions explain a substantial portion of the behavioral variation across societies: the higher the degree of market integration and the higher the payoffs to cooperation in everyday life, the greater the level of prosociality expressed in experimental games. Fourth, the available individual-level economic and demographic variables do not consistently explain game behavior, either within or across groups. Fifth, in many cases experimental play appears to reflect the common interactional patterns of everyday life. Key Words: altruism; cooperation; cross-cultural research; experimental economics; game theory; ultimatum game; public goods game; self-interest. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesSarah F. Brosnan & Frans B. M. de Waal (2005). A Cross-Species Perspective on the Selfishness Axiom. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):818-818.
Roger J. Sullivan & III Henry F. Lyle (2005). Economic Models Are Not Evolutionary Models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):836-836.
Michael Gurven (2004). To Give and to Give Not: The Behavioral Ecology of Human Food Transfers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (4):543-559.
Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis, Richard McElreath, Michael Alvard, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Natalie Smith Henrich, Kim Hill, Francisco Gil-White, Michael Gurven, Frank W. Marlowe, John Q. Patton & David Tracer (2005). Models of Decision-Making and the Coevolution of Social Preferences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):838-855.
Randolph C. Grace & Simon Kemp (2005). What Does the Ultimatum Game Mean in the Real World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):824-825.
Ken Binmore (2005). Economic Man – or Straw Man? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):817-818.
Ana C. Santos (2007). The 'Materials' of Experimental Economics: Technological Versus Behavioral Experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology 14 (3):311-337.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads14 ( #83,010 of 549,005 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,327 of 549,005 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
