Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-20T21:54:18.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agreements and disagreements with resource-rational contractualism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2026

Sydney Levine Open the ORCID record for Sydney Levine [Opens in a new window] ,
Nick Chater Open the ORCID record for Nick Chater [Opens in a new window] ,
Joshua Tenenbaum  and
Fiery Cushman Open the ORCID record for Fiery Cushman [Opens in a new window]
Sydney Levine*
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA smlevine@mit.edu Psychology Department, Harvard University, USA nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Warwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK jbt@mit.edu cushman@fas.harvard.edu
Joshua Tenenbaum
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA smlevine@mit.edu Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Fiery Cushman
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Harvard University, USA nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The commentaries collectively provide a thoughtful and constructive analysis of resource-rational contractualism (RRC), helping both to push the theory forward and clarifying its limitations. We use these as a springboard to revise and improve upon the ideas presented in the target article. Our replies are organized in three main themes: possible extensions, challenges, and wider applications.

Information

Type
Author’s Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e161
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

**

Joint senior author

References

Ainslie, G. (2017). Intertemporal bargaining in habit. Neuroethics, 10(1), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
André, J. B., & Baumard, N. (2011). The evolution of fairness in a biological market. Evolution, 65(5), 1447–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
André, J. B., Fitouchi, L., Debove, S., & Baumard, N. (2022). An evolutionary contractualist theory of morality. PsyArxiv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
André, J. B., Fitouchi, L., Debove, S., & Baumard, N. (2022). An evolutionary contractualist theory of morality. PsyArXiv. May, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, M. (2018). Mathematics elsewhere: An exploration of ideas across cultures.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2016). Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumard, N., André, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlin, I. (1969). Four essays on liberty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Christiansen, M. H. (2022). Grammar through spontaneous order. In Lappin, S., & Bernardy, J.-P. (Eds.), Algebraic structures in natural language (pp. 61–75). CRC Press. Christiansen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2022). The language game: How improvisation created language and changed the world. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255632∼ CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earp, B. D., McLoughlin, K. L., Monrad, J. T., Clark, M. S., & Crockett, M. J. (2021). How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments. Nature Communications, 12(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26067-4 Google ScholarPubMed
Fitouchi, L., André, J. B., & Baumard, N. (2023). Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grand, G., Tenenbaum, J. B., Mansinghka, V. K., Lew, A. K., & Andreas, J. (2025). Self-steering language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.07081 Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. Moral psychology, 3, 35–79.Google Scholar
Gunkel, D. J. (2018). Robot rights. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, M. K., Saxe, R., & Cushman, F. (2022). Planning with theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(11), 959–971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kleiman-Weiner, M., Shaw, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2017). Constructing social preferences from anticipated judgments: When impartial inequity is fair and why? In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 39).Google Scholar
Kosinski, M. (2024). Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(45), e2405460121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwon, J., Tenenbaum, J., & Levine, S. (2023). When it is not out of line to get out of line: The role of universalization and outcome-based reasoning in rule-breaking judgments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Pargneux, A., Chater, N., & Zeitoun, H. (2024). Contractualist tendencies and reasoning in moral judgment and decision making. Cognition, 249, 105838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Le Pargneux, A., & Cushman, F. (2025). Moral judgment is sensitive to bargaining power. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 154(1), 263–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Pargneux, A., Lie-Panis, J., Cashman, M., & Cushman, F. (2026). Modeling fairness judgments of splits between multiple parties. Preprint. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nrf4m_v1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, S., Franklin, M., Zhi-Xuan, T., Guyot, S. Y., Wong, L., Kilov, D., Choi, Y., Tenenbaum, J. B., Goodman, N., Lazar, S., & Gabriel, I. (2025). Resource rational contractualism should guide AI alignment. InterGoogle Scholar
Levine, S., Kleiman-Weiner, M., Chater, N., Cushman, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2024). When rules are over-ruled: Virtual bargaining as a contractualist method of moral judgment. Cognition, 250, 105790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, S., Kleiman‑Weiner, M., Schulz, L., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Cushman, F. (2020). The logic of universalization guides moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(42), 26158–26169. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014505117 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lie-Panis, J., Fitouch, F., Baumard, N., Andre, J. B. (2025). Why human societies adopt rigid moral rules: The efficiency–robustness trade-off.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieder, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2019). Resource‑rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, Article e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1900061X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macneil, I. R. (1978). Contracts: Adjustment of long-term economic relations under classical, neoclassical, and relational contract law. Northwestern University Law Review, 72(6), 854–905.Google Scholar
Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2023). The civic bargain: How democracy survives.Google Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, A. (2021). Cultural selection and biased transformation: Two dynamics of cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 376(1828).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mill, J. S. (1859/2003). On liberty. Penguin.Google Scholar
Misyak, J. B., & Chater, N. (2014). Virtual bargaining: A theory of social decision-making. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1655), 20130487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J., Choi, Y., & Levine, S. † (2024) Perceptions of compromise: Comparing consequentialist and contractualist accounts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.05496 Google Scholar
Newberry, T., & Ord, T. (2021). The parliamentary approach to moral uncertainty. FHI Technical Report 2021-2. Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19(3), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/360018.360022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ong, D. C., Zhi-Xuan, T., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Goodman, N. D. (2024). Probabilistic programming versus meta-learning as models of cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 47, e158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P., & Smith, M. (2000). Global consequentialism. In Hooker, B., Mason, E., & Miller, D. E. (Eds.), Moral particularism (pp. 121–135). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Goodman, N. D. (2016). The logical primitives of thought: Empirical foundations for compositional cognitive models. Psychological Review, 123(4), 392–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polanyi, M. (1941). The growth of thought in society. Economica, 8(32), 428–456. https://doi.org/10.2307/2548842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, H. (1974). The “corroboration” of theories. In The Philosophy of Karl Popper. P.A. Scilpp (ed). Open Court. pp 221-240.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts-Gaal, X., Le Pargneux, A., & Cushman, F. (2025). How the logic of bargaining shapes moral judgments about resource divisions. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 47).Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1981). The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamir, D. I., & Mitchell, J. P. (2013). Anchoring and adjustment during social inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(1), 151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theriault, J. E., Young, L., & Barrett, L. F. (2021). The sense of should: A biologically-based framework for modeling social pressure. Physics of Life Reviews, 36, 100–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. Wiley.Google Scholar
Trujillo Jiménez, D., Zhang, M., Zhi-Xuan, T., Tenenbaum, J., & Levine, S. (2025). Resource-rational virtual bargaining for moral judgment: Towards a probabilistic cognitive model. TopiCS in Cognitive Science, 17(3), 713–738. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
White, J., Bhui, R., Cushman, F., Tenenbaum, J., & Levine, S. † (2024). Moral flexibility in applying queuing norms can be explained by contractualist principles in children and adults. Proceedings of the 46 th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Google Scholar
Wong, L., Grand, G., Lew, A. K., Goodman, N. D., Mansinghka, V. K., Andreas, J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2023). From word models to world models: Translating from natural language to the probabilistic language of thought. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12672 Google Scholar
Wong, L., Kwon, J., Zhang, M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Levine, S. (2025). What moral rules mean (Manuscript in preparation).Google Scholar