IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2103.11075.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Limited Cognitive Abilities and Dominance Hierarchy

Author

Listed:
  • Hanyuan Huang
  • Jiabin Wu

Abstract

We propose a novel model to explain the mechanisms underlying dominance hierarchical structures. Guided by a predetermined social convention, agents with limited cognitive abilities optimize their strategies in a Hawk-Dove game. We find that several commonly observed hierarchical structures in nature such as linear hierarchy and despotism, emerge as the total fitness-maximizing social structures given different levels of cognitive abilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanyuan Huang & Jiabin Wu, 2021. "Limited Cognitive Abilities and Dominance Hierarchy," Papers 2103.11075, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2103.11075
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.11075
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Favati & Hanne Løvlie & Olof Leimar, 2017. "Individual aggression, but not winner–loser effects, predicts social rank in male domestic fowl," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 28(3), pages 874-882.
    2. Ken Binmore, 1994. "Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262023636, April.
    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. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2013. "Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2269-2302, November.
    3. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2004. "Ulysses and the Rent-Seekers: The Benefits and Challenges of Constitutional Constraints on Leviathan," Advances in Austrian Economics, in: The Dynamics of Intervention: Regulation and Redistribution in the Mixed Economy, pages 245-278, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    4. Louis Corriveau, 2012. "Game theory and the kula," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(1), pages 106-128, February.
    5. Ronaldo Fiani, 2004. "An Evaluation of the Role of the State and Property Rights in Douglass North’s Analysis," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1020, December.
    6. Nataliya Kusa, 2018. "Should intra-familial time transfers be compensated financially?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201802, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    7. Schaefer, Alexander, 2021. "Rationality, uncertainty, and unanimity: an epistemic critique of contractarianism," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 82-117, March.
    8. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    9. Holt, Gerhard, 2000. "A comment on indentured servitude: in response to Kritikos and Bolle -- February 15th, 1998," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 135-136, May.
    10. Pursey Heugens & J. Oosterhout & Muel Kaptein, 2006. "Foundations and Applications for Contractualist Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 211-228, October.
    11. Chaitanya S. Gokhale & Joseph Bulbulia & Marcus Frean, 2022. "Collective narratives catalyse cooperation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Aldo Rustichini, 2009. "Is There a Method of Neuroeconomics?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 48-59, August.
    14. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    15. Laurie Bréban & Muriel Gilardone, 2019. "A missing touch of Adam Smith in Amartya Sen’s account of Public Reasoning: the Man Within for the Man Without," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2019-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    16. Francesco De Sinopoli & Leo Ferraris & Claudia Meroni, 2024. "Group size as selection device," Working Papers 533, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics.
    17. Nannen, Volker & van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Eiben, A. E., 2008. "Impact of Environmental Dynamics on Economic Evolution: Uncertainty, Risk Aversion, and Policy," MPRA Paper 13834, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Thijssen, J.J.J., 2003. "Investment under uncertainty, market evolution and coalition spillovers in a game theoretic perspective," Other publications TiSEM 672073a6-492e-4621-8d4a-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Alexander Field, 2008. "Why multilevel selection matters," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 203-238, December.
    20. Keith Dowding, 2004. "Social Choice and the Grammar of Rights and Freedoms," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(1), pages 144-161, 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:2103.11075. 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.