Rationality vs. Learning in the Evolution of Solidarity Networks: A Theoretical Comparison

In this paper we analyze the evolution of solidarity relations between dissimilar actors by means of a cellular automaton framework. We assume that actors face two types of decisions in the course of an iterated game. First, actors&2018; solidarity decisions constitute mutual support relations between neighbors. Second, by migrating in a two dimensional world, actors select between potential solidarity partners. Moreover, actors are dissimilar with respect to their neediness class, i.e., their need for help. Hegselmann (1996) demonstrated by computer simulation that under these assumptions the behavior of (boundedly) rational egoists may lead to the emergence of a solidarity network that is characterized by class segregation. In the present paper, we explore whether the macro phenomenon of segregation depends on the micro assumption of rationality. We replace Hegselmann&2018;s rational egoist by an adaptive egoist, who takes solidarity and migration decisions on basis of the &2018;law of effect&2019;. A stochastic learning model (e.g., Flache and Macy, 1996) is used to simulate adaptive decision making. Our model of learning behavior, we show, entails the emergence of class segregated solidarity networks. At the same time, however, the evolving networks are considerably more fragile and less extended than those arising amongst rational egoists. While critics of the rational choice approach often argue that rational egoist models tend to underestimate the level of social solidarity, we showed that in this particular analysis relaxing the assumption of rationality may entail the prediction of less rather than more solidarity.

[1]  Rainer Hegselmann Cellular Automata in the Social Sciences , 1996 .

[2]  R. Hegselmann Social Dilemmas in Lineland and Flatland , 1996 .

[3]  J. Friedman Game theory with applications to economics , 1986 .

[4]  David M. Messick,et al.  Frontiers in Social Dilemmas Research , 1996 .

[5]  Michael Hechter,et al.  The Insufficiency of Game Theory for the Resolution of Real-World Collective Action Problems , 1992 .

[6]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Stochastic Models for Learning , 1956 .

[7]  Andreas Flache,et al.  Understanding Complex Social Dynamics: A Plea For Cellular Automata Based Modelling , 1998, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[8]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  Beyond Rationality in Models of Choice , 1995 .

[9]  Thomas C. Schelling,et al.  Dynamic models of segregation , 1971 .

[10]  O. D. Duncan,et al.  A METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SEGREGATION INDEXES , 1955 .

[11]  Peter Secretan Learning , 1965, Mental Health.

[12]  Michael Taylor The possibility of cooperation , 1987 .

[13]  M. Macy Learning to Cooperate: Stochastic and Tacit Collusion in Social Exchange , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  Andreas Flache,et al.  The double edge of networks. An analysis of the effect of informal networks on cooperation in social dilemmas , 1996 .

[15]  Milton Friedman,et al.  Essays in Positive Economics , 1954 .

[16]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  The weakness of strong ties: Collective action failure in a highly cohesive group* , 1996 .

[17]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  Learning Theory and the Logic of Critical Mass , 1990 .

[18]  Michael W. Macy,et al.  Backward-looking social control , 1993 .

[19]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  GAME THEORY AS A PART OF EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS , 1991 .