In this blog post, we will look at the power of a single word and why communication can lead to cooperation beyond selfishness.
What do we think of when we hear the word “wolf”? We might think of “full moon,” “howl” or “werewolf.” Someone else might come up with the saying, “Men are wolves.” If you choose the most academic and historical answer among the many answers, Hobbes’s statement, “Man is a wolf to all men,” might also be a good choice. In fact, Hobbes’s statement is the most appropriate to lead to the problem we are going to discuss today. In his words, “wolf” represents the selfish characteristics of humans. In other words, individual humans make the most selfish and rational choices to maximize their own interests. This is very rational from an evolutionary perspective, so individuals who behave altruistically should have been eliminated as a result of making irrational choices. Nevertheless, humanity has maintained altruism and achieved social solidarity to this day. This phenomenon cannot be easily explained by the principles of biological evolution, so social scientists have proposed various hypotheses to explain altruistic behavior.
As we can easily see around us today, there are still cases of making altruistic choices that benefit others at the expense of one’s own sacrifice. So how should this be explained? There are several hypotheses to answer this question, but here we will look at one of them, the “communication hypothesis.” The core of the “communication hypothesis” is that simple communication between individuals can make them behave altruistically. Of course, in theory, communication has no power. From an individual’s perspective, making selfish choices brings the greatest benefits, regardless of whether communication is possible or not, and regardless of whether the other person chooses to communicate or not. This logic of choice is rooted in human rationality, and most economic models also assume that individuals will pursue their own best interests. However, the results of actual experiments conducted in this regard are very different from these theoretical expectations.
First, let’s look at an experiment conducted by David Sally on the “Public Good Game.” To explain the experiment, let’s first take a brief look at the “Public Good Game.” When it comes to public goods, the best choice for each individual is to enjoy the benefits without paying for the goods. Of course, you can pay for the goods and enjoy the benefits, but in that case, the benefits enjoyed by each individual will inevitably decrease. As a result, if everyone makes selfish choices that only consider their own position, everyone will be unable to use the public good. Sally wanted to experiment with what changes communication would bring about in the aforementioned situation. Surprisingly, people’s cooperation increased significantly when communication was a prerequisite. Looking at the amount of money donated by individuals to create the public good, the result was an increase of 40-45%. (Sally, 1995)
Another experiment conducted by Juan Camilo Cardenas was based on the “Tragedy of the Commons Game” to find out how communication affects it. As with Sally’s experiment, to help you understand the experiment, I will briefly talk about the “Tragedy of the Commons Game” first. The “tragedy of the commons game” is based on the premise that people use resources in a commons. If people make selfish choices that waste resources because they only think about their own interests, they will eventually face the tragedy of resource depletion. However, if they set rules to limit the use of resources, they will receive fewer benefits than if they made selfish choices, but they will be able to enjoy those benefits consistently. In other words, rather than focusing on short-term gains, it is necessary to make choices with long-term survival and profit in mind. Cardenas wondered what impact communication could have under these conditions, and conducted an experiment through discussion, which is a form of communication. As a result of the experiment, as in Sally’s experiment, the degree of altruistic choice increased when a discussion was held. To be more specific, when making an selfish choice without communication, each individual chooses to gain A, but after a discussion, they choose to gain half of that (1/2)A. In the subsequent experiment, Cardenas replaced communication with a system in which each individual had a certain probability of revealing their choice, and discipline and punishment were imposed according to the result. The data from this experiment was very similar to the results of the previous experiment, which was conducted with communication. This suggests that communication itself acts as a system that detects and punishes selfish choices made by individuals. (Juan Camilo Cardenas, 2005)
Sally and Cardenas each studied the impact of communication on the public goods game and the tragedy of the commons game. Both experiments experimentally supported the “communication hypothesis,” which states that communication causes individuals to engage in altruistic behavior. In particular, Sally’s research clearly showed that communication processes such as everyday conversations and discussions can suppress human selfish instincts and lead to cooperative attitudes. Although it is not yet clear how it changes people through some process, research by social psychologists continues to reveal the principles behind it. Despite these limitations, the significance of the “communication hypothesis” is that it explains what the “repetition-reciprocity hypothesis,” which is considered a powerful hypothesis for explaining altruism, cannot explain. The “repetition-reciprocity hypothesis” has difficulty interpreting an individual’s altruistic behavior if the situation is not repeated, but the “communication hypothesis” shows that altruism can be expressed through communication even if there is no repetition.
Hobbes’ “wolf” certainly well expresses the selfish nature of humans. However, just as wolves make the best selfish choices while also communicating through their unique cries and living altruistically, humans also live by acting altruistically. And the “communication hypothesis” explains the very reason why altruism has been able to survive through our communication, just like the cries of wolves.
