IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Rational egoism versus adaptive egoism as fundamental postulate for a descriptive theory of human behavior

Listed author(s):
  • Dennis Mueller
Registered author(s):

    What I have proposed for consideration is a view of human behavior which is a complement to both the rational egoist model of individual behavior, and the sociobiological model of species behavior. Cooperative behavior can benefit all members of a group and increase each individual's chances of survival. Rather complicated cooperative behavior patterns are observed in some species, and give testimony to the importance of genetic heritage in explaining behavior. But anyone who has ever observed small children at play must believe that the instincts for selfish action dominate those to cooperate in humans. What humans inherit is a capacity to learn, to discriminate one situation from another, to generalize from past experience. But cooperative behavior among humans is learned. The usual depiction of this learning process by modelers of rational egoistic behavior is to assume that learning takes place within the context of the game. Since learning takes time, a repeated game is required to achieve cooperation. The most successful strategy for teaching one's fellow-player to cooperate appears to be the tit-for-tat strategy. It is interesting how closely Axelrod's (1984) description of tit-for-tat's success in bringing about cooperation parallels the psychologist's description of learning. The cooperative behavior of one player is rewarded by the cooperative behavior of the other. Noncooperative behavior is punished. ‘The emergence, growth, and maintenance of cooperation ... require an individual to be able to recognize another player who has been dealt with before [read stimulus]. They also require that one's prior history of interactions with this player can be remembered, so that a player can be responsive' [read one has a conditioned behavior pattern] (p. 174). Axelrod emphasizes that ‘there is no need to assume that the players are rational. They need not be trying to maximize their rewards. Their strategies may simply reflect standard operating procedures, rules of thumb ... habits ... The actions that players take are not necessarily even conscious choices’ (p. 18, and again at p. 173). Axelrod thus clearly believes that the tit-for-tat strategy as a description of behavior applies to situations, in which the rational portion of the rational egoism assumption is inappropriate. Throughout the book he moves back and forth from examples for which rational egoism in a prisoners' dilemma might fit, and others where it will not. He spends a whole chapter on ‘The Evolution of Cooperation in Biological Systems’ (written with William D. Hamilton, Chapter 5). The parallel between the basic principle of the evolutionary approach, ‘whatever is successful is likely to appear more often in the future’ (p. 169), and the basic principle of behaviorist psychology, ‘positive reinforcement increases the future likelihood of operant behavior,’ is again obvious. Operant conditioning describes the learning process of the individual in adapting to the environment, natural selection describes the evolutionary process of species adaptation (Notterman, 1970: 13). The common thread running through each of these paradigms from selfish gene, through thirsty rat, to homo economicus is egoism. And, I submit, the only assumption essential to a descriptive and predictive science of human behavior is egoism. What then of the rationality assumption? A moment's reflection will reveal that the only use to which we put the rationality assumption is to add precision to the predictions stemming from the egoism postulate, as when we operationalize rational egoism by assuming the individual maximizes an objective function. Now rigor is an important and useful property of a model, so long as it does not come at the expense of realism. Fortunately, the public choice analyst can have both the rigor of mathematical modeling and the realism of assuming only egoistic motivation, if he/she treats the rationality assumption as an as if behavioral assumption. Over 35 years ago, Armen Alchian (1950), answered critics of the profits maximization assumption in the theory of the firm by arguing that in a competitive environment the less profitable firms perish, and the surviving firms adopt decision rules as if they had been consciously trying to maximize profits, whatever the criteria actually employed to make decisions. Competition for survival selects gene structures as if the evolution of the species were maximizing the probability of survival. Where cooperation has significant advantages for all members of a group, the group will adopt mores and laws which condition people to behave as if they were maximizing a function like (1) with θ=1. Over time, those social institutions for conditioning cooperative behavior will survive that maximize group survival chances. The weaker the social conditioning of cooperative behavior is, the more individual behavior will resemble the maximization of (1) with some θ > 1. In the limit, when individual decisions do not impinge of the welfare of others, individual behavior resembles the maximization of (1) as if θ=0. Thus, behavior can be modeled as if it was motivated by conscious choices to maximize different objective functions, with the specification of the objective function varying to reflect the level of analysis (species, group, individual), the adaptive history of the subjects, and the context of the actions. For most of us this is a comforting thought, since we have been conditioned to working with optimization models. But there is an important difference between as if maximization based on a pure egoism postulate and rational egoism as usually employed. The difference lies in determining what goes into the objective function. A model of man based on as if maximization of a socially conditioned or an evolutionarily molded objective function, is a model of adaptive behavior. Thus, what I am proposing is that the rational egoism postulate be replaced by an adaptive egoism postulate to model human behavior. The difference between these assumptions is similar to the difference between the rational expectations and adaptive expectations assumptions used in economics. To describe an individual's expectations at time t using the rational expectations assumption we look at what happens after t, to describe them under adaptive expectations we look at what happened before t. Rational egoism, as usually modeled, considers only the consequences of different actions, the payoffs in the strategy matrix. When modeling the behavior of an individual, who has played the game several times before, who has been rewarded for choosing certain strategies, and punished for others, this forward looking objective function can give accurate predictions of an individual's actions. For much of what we do in public choice as in economics, this rarefied setting for making choices may come close enough to matching the context in which isolated individuals act to give us reasonable descriptions of human behavior. But when we attempt to explain behavior in more complicated social contexts, as we so often do in public choice, charity, voting, crime, then we shall add to the descriptive power of our models by recognizing that man has not only a future, but also a past. George C. Homans (1958, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1974) has argued for many years that a unified sociological theory can and should be built on behavioralist psychology principles to displace the many discordant theories of modern sociology. Were economics and rational politics to replace rational egoism with adaptive egoism as their fundamental behavioral postulate, the possibility would exist for constructing a common methodological foundation for all of the social sciences. For once interdisciplinary research within the social sciences would not be hampered by basic differences in methodologies. The potential gains in knowledge from cross-fertilization are enormous. Certainly these gains are worth the costs of revising our modeling of human behavior, where necessary, as the replacement of rational egoism by adaptive egoism dictates. Copyright Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1986

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Public Choice.

    Volume (Year): 51 (1986)
    Issue (Month): 1 (January)
    Pages: 3-23

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:51:y:1986:i:1:p:3-23
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00141682
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Web:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Armen A. Alchian, 1950. "Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58, pages 211-211.
    2. Coughlin, Peter & Nitzan, Shmuel, 1981. "Electoral outcomes with probabilistic voting and Nash social welfare maxima," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 113-121, February.
    3. Smith, Vernon L, 1979. " An Experimental Comparison of Three Public Good Decision Mechanisms," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(2), pages 198-215.
    4. Witt, Ulrich, 1986. "Evolution and Stability of Cooperation without Enforceable Contracts," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 245-266.
    5. Mark Isaac, R. & McCue, Kenneth F. & Plott, Charles R., 1985. "Public goods provision in an experimental environment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 51-74, February.
    6. John Ledyard, 1984. "The pure theory of large two-candidate elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 7-41, January.
    7. repec:cup:apsrev:v:68:y:1974:i:02:p:525-536_11 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. John C. Harsanyi, 1955. "Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63, pages 309-309.
    9. Gordon Tullock, 1981. "Why so much stability," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 189-204, January.
    10. Slovic, Paul & Lichtenstein, Sarah, 1983. "Preference Reversals: A Broader Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 596-605, September.
    11. Pommerehne, Werner W & Schneider, Friedrich & Zweifel, Peter, 1982. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon: A Reexamination," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 569-574, June.
    12. Etzioni, Amitai, 1986. "The Case for a Multiple-Utility Conception," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 159-184, October.
    13. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1979. "Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 623-638, September.
    14. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    15. Peter Coughlin, 1982. "Pareto optimality of policy proposals with probabilistic voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 427-433, January.
    16. repec:cup:apsrev:v:69:y:1975:i:03:p:916-917_24 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Plott, Charles R, 1982. "Industrial Organization Theory and Experimental Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1485-1527, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:51:y:1986:i:1:p:3-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.