Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 54
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Halevy, N. 2016.

    Sparks, Adam Burleigh, Tyler and Barclay, Pat 2016. We can see inside: Accurate prediction of Prisoner's Dilemma decisions in announced games following a face-to-face interaction. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 37, Issue. 3, p. 210.

    Johnson, Samuel G.B. and Rips, Lance J. 2015. Do the right thing: The assumption of optimality in lay decision theory and causal judgment. Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 77, p. 42.

    Moro, Rodrigo Freidin, Esteban and Tohmé, Fernando 2015. Social preferences are not enough: Accounting for anomalous behavior in a complex mixed-motive game. Cuadernos de Economía, Vol. 34, Issue. 65, p. 261.

    Roos, Patrick Gelfand, Michele Nau, Dana and Lun, Janetta 2015. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 129, p. 14.

    Ye, Jiawen and Ng, Sik Hung 2015. An intermediary enhances out-group trust and in-group profit expectation of Chinese but not Australians. International Journal of Psychology, p. n/a.

    Guckelsberger, Christian and Polani, Daniel 2014. Effects of Anticipation in Individually Motivated Behaviour on Survival and Control in a Multi-Agent Scenario with Resource Constraints. Entropy, Vol. 16, Issue. 6, p. 3357.

    Pulford, Briony D. Colman, Andrew M. and Lawrence, Catherine L. 2014. Strong Stackelberg reasoning in symmetric games: An experimental replication and extension. PeerJ, Vol. 2, p. e263.

    Rashedi, Navid and Kebriaei, Hamed 2014. Cooperative and non-cooperative Nash solution for linear supply function equilibrium game. Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 244, p. 794.

    Cress, Ulrike and Kimmerle, Joachim 2013. Computervermittelter Wissensaustausch als Soziales Dilemma: Ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, Vol. 27, Issue. 1-2, p. 9.

    Glanville, J. L. Andersson, M. A. and Paxton, P. 2013. Do Social Connections Create Trust? An Examination Using New Longitudinal Data. Social Forces, Vol. 92, Issue. 2, p. 545.

    Zettler, Ingo Hilbig, Benjamin E. and Heydasch, Timo 2013. Two sides of one coin: Honesty–Humility and situational factors mutually shape social dilemma decision making. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 47, Issue. 4, p. 286.

    Beullens, Patrick Zaibidi, Nerda Z. and Jones, Dylan F. 2012. Goal programming to model human decision making in ultimatum games. International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 599.

    Colman, Andrew M. and Pulford, Briony D. 2012. Problems and Pseudo-Problems in Understanding Cooperation in Social Dilemmas. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, p. 39.

    De Dreu, Carsten K.W. 2012. Oxytocin modulates cooperation within and competition between groups: An integrative review and research agenda. Hormones and Behavior, Vol. 61, Issue. 3, p. 419.

    Hilbig, Benjamin E. Zettler, Ingo and Heydasch, Timo 2012. Personality, Punishment and Public Goods: Strategic Shifts Towards Cooperation as a Matter of Dispositional Honesty-Humility. European Journal of Personality, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 245.

    Liang, Xiaohui Li, Xu Luan, Tom H. Lu, Rongxing Lin, Xiaodong and Shen, Xuemin 2012. Morality-Driven Data Forwarding With Privacy Preservation in Mobile Social Networks. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 61, Issue. 7, p. 3209.

    Pfister, Hans-Rüdiger and Böhm, Gisela 2012. Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior. Games, Vol. 3, Issue. 4, p. 1.

    Tsoory, M.M. Youdim, M.B. and Schuster, R. 2012. Social-cooperation differs from individual behavior in hypothalamic and striatal monoamine function: Evidence from a laboratory rat model. Behavioural Brain Research, Vol. 232, Issue. 1, p. 252.

    Colman, Andrew M. Körner, Tom W. Musy, Olivier and Tazdaït, Tarik 2011. Mutual support in games: Some properties of Berge equilibria. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 55, Issue. 2, p. 166.


Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction

  • Andrew M. Colman (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 April 2003

Rational choice theory enjoys unprecedented popularity and influence in the behavioral and social sciences, but it generates intractable problems when applied to socially interactive decisions. In individual decisions, instrumental rationality is defined in terms of expected utility maximization. This becomes problematic in interactive decisions, when individuals have only partial control over the outcomes, because expected utility maximization is undefined in the absence of assumptions about how the other participants will behave. Game theory therefore incorporates not only rationality but also common knowledge assumptions, enabling players to anticipate their co-players' strategies. Under these assumptions, disparate anomalies emerge. Instrumental rationality, conventionally interpreted, fails to explain intuitively obvious features of human interaction, yields predictions starkly at variance with experimental findings, and breaks down completely in certain cases. In particular, focal point selection in pure coordination games is inexplicable, though it is easily achieved in practice; the intuitively compelling payoff-dominance principle lacks rational justification; rationality in social dilemmas is self-defeating; a key solution concept for cooperative coalition games is frequently inapplicable; and rational choice in certain sequential games generates contradictions. In experiments, human players behave more cooperatively and receive higher payoffs than strict rationality would permit. Orthodox conceptions of rationality are evidently internally deficient and inadequate for explaining human interaction. Psychological game theory, based on nonstandard assumptions, is required to solve these problems, and some suggestions along these lines have already been put forward.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *