Introductory description

The module raises a series of fundamental questions about the nature of human sociality, including: How does human sociality differ from that of other species? What kinds of cognition support these differences? What are the social mechanisms that support and sustain human cooperation? Are there traits of some communities that makes them more open to cooperation with others? And how do our attitudes to in-group and out-group populations differ?

We discuss answers to these questions as they have been studied across the disciplines of economics, psychology and philosophy, and show how the complementary disciplinary perspectives are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The goal is to show both that the new cognitive science of group behaviour is a necessarily interdisciplinary project, and to give students an understanding of the different ways in which Philosophy, Psychology, and Economics contribute to the study of human nature and human sociality.

Module web page

Module aims

Outline syllabus

This is an indicative module outline only to give an indication of the sort of topics that may be covered. Actual sessions held may differ.

Group Thinking: EPP Capstone Module

This module consists of a series of lectures on issues related to group thinking, the nature of reasoning that characterises and sustains group interactions, and the ways in which group thinking can lead to failures of reasoning. We will consider a range of group-thinking phenomena through the disciplinary lenses of Economics, Philosophy and Psychology, and consider how the issues discussed in the course can be informed by interdisciplinary dialogue.

The course will be co-taught by a philosopher, an economist, and a behavioural economist. We will discuss interdisciplinary approaches to the study of a range of group thought phenomena, including 'Theory of Mind', the foundations of culture, norm-cognition, the Tragedy of the Commons (our collective tendency to exhaust finite resources through poor management), zero-sum thinking (the tendency to incorrectly frame problems as zero-sum, where one person's gains necessarily imply a loss for others), in-group biases, and a range of issues in collective decision making. We will additionally discuss the and the nature and origins of uniquely human socio-cognitive abilities like theory of mind and norm-cognition. ,

The psychological phenomena under discussion will be addressed through two key questions, which will be revisited throughout the course:

1. How do philosophical issues (e.g. concerning the characterisation of social behaviours) affect the collection and interpretation of data on human sociality?
2. What are the implications of the results of empirical studies of human social behaviour for policy formation?on of data have implications for policy formation?

Learning outcomes

By the end of the module, students should be able to:

• Demonstrate a good understanding of the ways in which a range of phenomena identified as aspects or consequences of group mindedness has been conceptualised in economics, psychology and philosophy.
• Demonstrate a good understanding of the different types of questions about group mindedness that are raised in each of the EPP disciplines.
• Demonstrate a good understanding of how the answers to these different types of questions bear upon one another, and upon issues of policy formation.
• Critically evaluate different theoretical accounts of group mind behaviours across the EPP disciplines.

Indicative reading list

Alesina, A., & Giuliano, P. (2015). Culture and institutions. Journal of economic literature, 53(4), 898-944.

Bicchieri, C. (2005). The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1, pp.1-28.

Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004). Measuring social norms and preferences using experimental games: A guide for social scientists. In: Henrich, Joseph et al. (eds), Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies, Oxford University Press. pp.55-95.

Dennett, D. C. (1971). Intentional systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 68(4), 87-106.

Frischmann, B. M., Marciano, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2019). Retrospectives: Tragedy of the commons after 50 years. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 211-28.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243-1248.

Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton UP.

Heyes, C. & Frith, C. (2014). The cultural evolution of mind reading. Science, 344(6190), 1243091.

Ongis, M. & Davidai, S. (2021). Personal relative deprivation and the belief that economic success is zero-sum. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 493-535.

Rustagi, D., Engel, S., & Kosfeld, M. (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science, 330(6006), 961-965.

Schelling, T. C. (1973). Hockey helmets, concealed weapons, and daylight saving: A study of binary choices with externalities. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17(3): 381-428.

Tomasello, M. (2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.

Warsitzka, M., Zhang, H., Loschelder, D. D., Majer, J. M., & Trötschel, R. (2022). How cognitive issue bracketing affects interdependent decision-making in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 99, 104268.

Interdisciplinary

This is an interdisciplinary module that explores issues at the intersection of Economics, Psychology and Philosophy.

Subject specific skills

Students should be able to express themselves using the accurate vocabulary employed within economics, psychology and philosophy, and appreciate the difference as well as connections between debates in the three disciplines. Additionally, they should be able to articulate the ways in which the theoretical issues of conceptualisation and data interpretation addressed in class might bear on policy formation.

Transferable skills

Students should be able to come to their own understanding of the relevant literature, explain key positions and arguments in their own words, and express themselves clearly in both spoken and written words. Students should be able to identify the important claims within readings, understand the structure of arguments, test views for strengths and weaknesses, make pertinent use of examples, and compare the substance of views consistently.