Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2026
13:40
Combining Computer Game-Based Behavioural Experiments With High-Density EEG and Infrared Gaze Tracking
Published on: December 16, 2010
Methodological individualism in experimental games: not so easily dismissed
1Department of Psychology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA. Joachim_Krueger@Brown.edu
Acta Psychologica
|February 8, 2008
Summary
Evidential decision making explains cooperation and coordination in games by projecting one's own choices onto others. This approach avoids social preferences and methodological individualism, challenging alternative theories like team reasoning.
Area of Science:
- Behavioral economics
- Game theory
- Decision theory
Background:
- Orthodox game theory and social preference models fail to explain cooperation and coordination in experimental games.
- Existing models lack a robust explanation for observed cooperative behaviors.
Discussion:
- Evidential decision making offers a parsimonious explanation for cooperation by positing that individuals project their own choices onto others.
- This theory upholds methodological individualism, requiring no assumptions about social preferences.
- Team reasoning, which rejects methodological individualism, is critiqued as a resurgence of the group mind fallacy and not uniquely supported by experimental evidence.
Key Insights:
- Evidential decision making provides a unified framework for understanding cooperation and coordination in interactive decision-making.
- The theory's reliance on projecting one's own choices offers a novel perspective on social behavior.
- Experimental evidence does not exclusively support team reasoning over evidential decision making.
Outlook:
- Further research can explore the predictive power of evidential decision making in diverse social contexts.
- Investigating the neural underpinnings of choice projection could illuminate the mechanisms of evidential decision making.
- Re-evaluating experimental designs to differentiate between evidential decision making and other models of social behavior is crucial.
Related Concept Videos
01:24Social Foundations of Self I: Play and Game
The development of self in children is deeply rooted in social interactions, mainly through stages of play and structured games. These stages, outlined by sociologist George Herbert Mead, illustrate how children progressively learn to understand and adopt social roles, forming a cohesive sense of self.The Play Stage: Imitation and Simple Role-TakingIn the early years of childhood, the play stage is characterized by imitative behavior, where children engage in role-playing based on familiar...
01:20Social Foundations of Self II: The Generalized Other
According to George Herbert Mead, as children progress beyond the game stage, they develop a more comprehensive understanding of societal rules and norms. This cognitive and social development enables them to internalize the expectations of the broader community, refining their ability to regulate behavior.Consistent participation in organized activities is crucial in helping children recognize that their actions are not isolated but contribute to a more significant, interconnected group effort.
02:30Naturalistic Observations
If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances...
00:52Social Proof
Social proof is a form of persuasion based on comparison and conformity. People compare their behavior and actions to what others are doing and will change to conform to do what their peers do.
01:14Fundamental Attribution Error
According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...
00:57Deindividuation
Deindividuation is a form of social influence on an individual’s behavior such that the individual engages in unusual or non-normal behavior while in a group setting. Why? Because in these group settings, the individual no longer sees themselves as an individual anymore, disinhibiting their behavior and personal restraint.