IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1801.10520.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Hyper-rational choice theory

Author

Listed:
  • Madjid Eshaghi Gordji
  • Gholamreza Askari

Abstract

The rational choice theory is based on this idea that people rationally pursue goals for increasing their personal interests. In most conditions, the behavior of an actor is not independent of the person and others' behavior. Here, we present a new concept of rational choice as a hyper-rational choice which in this concept, the actor thinks about profit or loss of other actors in addition to his personal profit or loss and then will choose an action which is desirable to him. We implement the hyper-rational choice to generalize and expand the game theory. Results of this study will help to model the behavior of people considering environmental conditions, the kind of behavior interactive, valuation system of itself and others and system of beliefs and internal values of societies. Hyper-rationality helps us understand how human decision makers behave in interactive decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Madjid Eshaghi Gordji & Gholamreza Askari, 2018. "Hyper-rational choice theory," Papers 1801.10520, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2018.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1801.10520
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.10520
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2014. "Belief Elicitation in the Laboratory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 103-128, August.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    4. Anna Dreber & David G. Rand & Drew Fudenberg & Martin A. Nowak, 2008. "Winners don’t punish," Nature, Nature, vol. 452(7185), pages 348-351, March.
    5. Geanakoplos, John & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1989. "Psychological games and sequential rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 60-79, March.
    6. Bettina Rockenbach & Manfred Milinski, 2006. "The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7120), pages 718-723, December.
    7. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    8. W. Hildenbrand & H. Sonnenschein (ed.), 1991. "Handbook of Mathematical Economics," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    9. Rand, David Gertler & Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Ellingson, Tore & Nowak, Martin A., 2009. "Positive Interactions Promote Public Cooperation," Scholarly Articles 3804483, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    10. Jillian J. Jordan & Moshe Hoffman & Paul Bloom & David G. Rand, 2016. "Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7591), pages 473-476, February.
    11. ATTANASI Giuseppe & NAGEL Rosemarie, 2008. "A Survey of Psychological Games: Theoretical Findings and Experimental Evidence," LERNA Working Papers 08.07.251, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    12. Hisashi Ohtsuki & Yoh Iwasa & Martin A. Nowak, 2009. "Indirect reciprocity provides only a narrow margin of efficiency for costly punishment," Nature, Nature, vol. 457(7225), pages 79-82, January.
    13. Harsanyi,John C., 1986. "Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521311830, June.
    14. Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford, 2015. "Psychology of Game Playing: Introduction to a Special Issue," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-8, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gholamreza Askari & Madjid Eshaghi Gordji & Choonkil Park, 2019. "The behavioral model and game theory," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Alexander Isakov & David Rand, 2012. "The Evolution of Coercive Institutional Punishment," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 97-109, March.
    3. Luo-Luo Jiang & Matjaž Perc & Attila Szolnoki, 2013. "If Cooperation Is Likely Punish Mildly: Insights from Economic Experiments Based on the Snowdrift Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    4. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Yu, Tongkui & Chen, Shu-Heng & Li, Honggang, 2011. "Social Norm, Costly Punishment and the Evolution to Cooperation," MPRA Paper 28814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jillian J Jordan & David G Rand & Samuel Arbesman & James H Fowler & Nicholas A Christakis, 2013. "Contagion of Cooperation in Static and Fluid Social Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    8. Vallstrom, Daniel, 2025. "Cooperative Evolutionary Pressure and Diminishing Returns Might Explain the Fermi Paradox: On What Super-AIs Are Like," OSF Preprints bq438_v3, Center for Open Science.
    9. Yamamoto, Hitoshi & Okada, Isamu, 2016. "How to keep punishment to maintain cooperation: Introducing social vaccine," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 443(C), pages 526-536.
    10. Quan, Ji & Yu, Junyu & Li, Xia & Wang, Xianjia, 2023. "Conditional switching between social excluders and loners promotes cooperation in spatial public goods game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    11. Elisabeth Gsottbauer & Jeroen den Bergh, 2013. "Bounded rationality and social interaction in negotiating a climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 225-249, September.
    12. Jeromos Vukov & Flávio L Pinheiro & Francisco C Santos & Jorge M Pacheco, 2013. "Reward from Punishment Does Not Emerge at All Costs," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, January.
    13. Mateus Joffily & David Masclet & Charles N Noussair & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Emotions, Sanctions, and Cooperation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(4), pages 1002-1027, April.
    14. Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2009. "Institution design in social dilemmas: How to design if you must?," MPRA Paper 16922, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Ohdaira, Tetsushi, 2017. "Characteristics of the evolution of cooperation by the probabilistic peer-punishment based on the difference of payoff," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 77-83.
    16. Chugunova, Marina & Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2020. "When to leave carrots for sticks: On the evolution of sanctioning institutions in open communities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Jonathan E Bone & Brian Wallace & Redouan Bshary & Nichola J Raihani, 2016. "Power Asymmetries and Punishment in a Prisoner’s Dilemma with Variable Cooperative Investment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-16, May.
    18. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    19. Fudenberg, Drew & Pathak, Parag A., 2010. "Unobserved punishment supports cooperation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 78-86, February.
    20. Steve Guglielmo & Bertram F Malle, 2019. "Asymmetric morality: Blame is more differentiated and more extreme than praise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1801.10520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.