COGM015 Социални дилеми и теория на игрите


The course covers topics in game theory and moral judgments from a cognitive science perspective. Game theory describes social situations in which the outcome depends on the decisions of 2 or more decision makers. The students are introduced to the most popular games in the field - dictator game, ulitmatum game, Prisoner’s dilemma game – experimental findings and models. The second part of the course deals with theories and experiments concerning moral dilemmas.

прочети още
Когнитивна наука (на английски език)


проф. Морис Гринберг  д-р
гл. ас. Евгения Христова  д-р

Описание на курса:


Upon the successful completion of the course the students should be able to:

- Describe the main theories and experiments in the field of game theory

- Describe the main experimental paradigms used to study the interdependent decision making

- Describe the main theories in the field of moral judgments

- Discuss scientific articles in the field of game theory and moral dilemmas

- Design their own experiments to study social dilemmas

Предварителни изисквания:
COGM207 or a similar course covering the main theories in the field of judgment and decision making

Форми на провеждане:

Учебни форми:

Език, на който се води курса:

Теми, които се разглеждат в курса:

Литература по темите:

Game theory:

• Andreoni, J. & Miller, J. (1993). Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated Prisoner’s dilemma: experimental evidence. The Economic Journal, 103, 570-585.

• Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

• Camerer, C. (2003a). Behavioral game theory: experiments on strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.

• Colman, A. (1995). Game theory and its applications in the social and biological sciences. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

• Colman, A. (2003). Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 139-198.

• Croson, R. (1999). The Disjunction Effect and Reason-Based Choice in Games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 118-133.

• Erev, I., & Roth, A. (2001). Simple reinforcement learning models and reciprocation in the Prisoner's dilemma game. In: Gigerenzer, G., Selten, R. (Eds.), Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.

• Macy, M., & Flache, A. (2002). Learning dynamics in social dilemmas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99, 7229-7236.

• Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. (1965). Prisoner’s dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

• Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7, 58-92.

• Smith, V. (2003). Experimental methods in economics. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.

Moral dilemmas

• Greene, J., Morelli, S., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L., & Cohen, J. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144–1154.

• Greene, J., Sommerville, R., Nystrom, L., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.

• Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

• Hauser, M. (2006). Moral Minds: How Nature Designed a Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. HarperCollins, New York.

• McGuire, J., Langdon, R., Coltheart, M., & Mackenzie, C. (2009). A reanalysis of the personal/impersonal distinction in moral psychology research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 577?580.

• Moore, A., Clark, B., & Kane, M. (2008). Who shalt not kill?: Individual differences in working memory capacity, executive control, and moral judgment. Psychological Science, 19, 549–557.

• Wiech, K., Kahane, G., Shackel, N., Farias, M., Savulescu, J., Tracey, I. (2013). Cold or calculating? Reduced activity in the subgenual cingulate cortex reflects decreased emotional aversion to harming in counterintuitive utilitarian judgment. Cognition. 126(3), 364?72.

Средства за оценяване:

Participation in the discussions in class or written 2 pages resumes of the discussed papers and chapters

2 presentations of papers relevant to the topics of the course