Human Behavior/Cooperation Described by Game Theory
This research article presents an interesting study performed by Georgia State University, which utilizes game theory to compare the behaviors of two different species of participants – monkeys and humans. In this study, a group of humans and two types of monkeys participated in a game with members of their same species. In the article (based on the findings in a paper published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization), the author argues that the results of this study reveal the “evolutionary trajectory” of human decision making, as well as an important distinction between humans and other animals – the ability to cooperate.
This study directly relates to our coursework because it provides an example of game theory. The game used in this study was the Hawk-Dove game. As we briefly discussed in class, this game involves two options – to fight or to yield. Similarly to many examples we’ve done in class and homework, the study aims to find a Nash Equilibrium where they have nothing to gain by switching strategies (assuming the other participant’s strategy doesn’t change). If both players fight, no one wins; If both yield, both get a small payoff; If one fights and the other yields, one gets a large payoff and one gets no payoff. In this game, there are two Nash equilibrium and therefore it is best when players alternate who fights and who yields. This study took it one step further, however, by looking to see how quickly monkeys and humans could achieve a Nash Equilibrium and then comparing the results to make connections and deductions about what this says about humans. While both monkeys and humans realized that having one person fight and one yield was the optimal strategy for one person, only humans were able to recognize that an alternating Nash Equilibrium provided the best distribution of the maximum payoff. According to the author, these findings are important because they shed light on the development of human decision making. Despite what it may feel like now in a highly competitive society and at a specifically competitive university, humans have always been dependent on one another. From working together for survival to constantly depending on family and friends throughout life – humans evolutionarily do better in a group than individually. If we all chose the selfish best outcome for our individual selves every time, there would be no cooperation and it would be quite difficult in terms of ease of living and even survival. This ability to cooperate and find alternating Nash Equilibria/win-win situations is an important factor that distinguishes humans from other animal species and demonstrates how game theory can be a useful tool in the advancement and understanding of human behaviors.