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, Oxford University Press, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. W. Hildenbrand & H. Sonnenschein (ed.), 1991. "Handbook of Mathematical Economics," Handbook of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    3. Andrew Schotter & Isabel Trevino, 2014. "Belief Elicitation in the Laboratory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 103-128, August.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Harsanyi,John C., 1986. "Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521311830, December.
    7. Geanakoplos, John & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1989. "Psychological games and sequential rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 60-79, March.
    8. Andrew M. Colman & Briony D. Pulford, 2015. "Psychology of Game Playing: Introduction to a Special Issue," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 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. Yuval Heller & Eyal Winter, 2020. "Biased-Belief Equilibrium," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-40, May.
    3. Jiabin Wu, 2018. "Indirect higher order beliefs and cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(4), pages 858-876, December.
    4. Kawagoe, Toshiji & Narita, Yusuke, 2014. "Guilt aversion revisited: An experimental test of a new model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    6. Cartwright, Edward, 2019. "A survey of belief-based guilt aversion in trust and dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 430-444.
    7. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    8. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis M. Miller, 2008. "Instinctive Response in the Ultimatum Game," ThE Papers 08/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    9. Pope, Robin & Selten, Reinhard, 2009. "Risk in a Simple Temporal Framework for Expected Utility Theory and for SKAT, the Stages of Knowledge Ahead Theory," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 27/2009, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    10. 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.
    11. Jeongbin Kim & Louis Putterman & Xinyi Zhang, 2019. ""Trust, Beliefs and Cooperation: Excavating a Foundation of Strong Economics," Working Papers 2019-10, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    12. Pope, Robin & Selten, Reinhard, 2009. "Risk and Expected Utility Theory," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 5/2009, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    13. Giuseppe Attanasi & Pierpaolo Battigalli & Elena Manzoni, 2016. "Incomplete-Information Models of Guilt Aversion in the Trust Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 648-667, March.
    14. John A Clithero & Dharol Tankersley & Scott A Huettel, 2008. "Foundations of Neuroeconomics: From Philosophy to Practice," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-6, November.
    15. Bellemare, Charles & Sebald, Alexander & Suetens, Sigrid, 2017. "A note on testing guilt aversion," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 233-239.
    16. Matthias Greiff, 2019. "Team Production and Esteem: A Dual Selves Model with Belief-Dependent Preferences," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-1, August.
    17. Gürerk, Özgür, 2013. "Social learning increases the acceptance and the efficiency of punishment institutions in social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 229-239.
    18. Ederer, Florian & Stremitzer, Alexander, 2017. "Promises and expectations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 161-178.
    19. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    20. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.