Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-5qg8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T22:25:22.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Delegation to legitimate authority as a resource rational mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2026

Setayesh Radkani Open the ORCID record for Setayesh Radkani [Opens in a new window]  and
Rebecca Saxe Open the ORCID record for Rebecca Saxe [Opens in a new window]
Setayesh Radkani*
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA radkani@mit.edu saxe@mit.edu
Rebecca Saxe
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA radkani@mit.edu saxe@mit.edu
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diverse cognitive processes underlying human moral judgment can be understood as resource rational approximations of full bargaining of social contracts. We extend this theory by highlighting delegation to legitimate representatives as another key resource rational strategy. Considering delegation introduces a new set of cognitive mechanisms and heuristics that could be incorporated in a resource rational contractualist theory of morality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 49 , 2026 , e152
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

References

André, J., Fitouchi, L., Debove, S., & Baumard, N. (2022). An evolutionary contractualist theory of morality. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/2hxguCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassarri, D., & Grossman, G. (2011). Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(27): 11023–11027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-Gill, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Regulation as delegation. Journal of Legal Analysis 7(1): 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, E. S., Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. A. (2022). Identifying legitimacy: Experimental evidence on compliance with authority. Science Advances 8(7): eabj7377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrell, H., Gopnik, A., Shalizi, C., & Evans, J. (2025). Large AI models are cultural and social technologies. Science 387(6739): 1153–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kogler, C., Olsen, J., Kirchler, E., Batrancea, L. M., & Nichita, A. (2023). Perceptions of trust and power are associated with tax compliance: A cross-cultural study. Economic and Political Studies 11(3): 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist 53(3): 354–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margoni, F., Baillargeon, R., & Surian, L. (2018). Infants distinguish between leaders and bullies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(38): E8835–E8843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. (2017). Procedural justice and its role in promoting voluntary compliance. Regulatory theory: Foundations and applications, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radkani, S., Tenenbaum, J., & Saxe, R. (2025). What people learn from punishment: A cognitive model. Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 122(32), e2500730122.Google ScholarPubMed
Saxe, R. (2022). Perceiving and pursuing legitimate power. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 26(12): 1062–1063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Lytle, B. L. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(4): 567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review 37(3): 513–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. J., Mitchell, V., Sumner, E., Terrizzi, B. F., Piff, P. K., & Sarnecka, B. W. (2022). Intuitive sociology: Children recognize decision-making structures and prefer groups with less-concentrated power. Open Mind 6: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsai, L. L., Trinh, M., & Liu, S. (2022). What makes anticorruption punishment popular? Individual-level evidence from China. The Journal of Politics 84(1): 602–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16(3): 75–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyran, J. R., & Feld, L. P. (2006). Achieving compliance when legal sanctions are non-deterrent. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 108(1): 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar