Abstract: In the present essay, a model of choice by actors is analysedby utilizing the theory of chaos to explain how change comes about. Then, by using ancient and modern sources of literature, the theory of the social contract is analysed as a historical phenomenon that first appeared during the period of Classical Greece. Then, based on the findings of this analysis, the practice of direct democracy and public choice in ancient Athens is analysed, through two historical cases: Eubulus and Lycurgus political program in the second half of the 4th century. The main finding of this research is that these policies can be interpreted as an implementation of a social contract, through which citizens were taking decisions based on rational choice according to economic considerations.
Abstract: In two studies we tested the hypothesis that the
appropriate linguistic formulation of a deontic rule – i.e. the
formulation which clarifies the monadic nature of deontic operators
- should produce more correct responses than the conditional
formulation in Wason selection task. We tested this assumption by
presenting a prescription rule and a prohibition rule in conditional
vs. proper deontic formulation. We contrasted this hypothesis with
two other hypotheses derived from social contract theory and
relevance theory. According to the first theory, a deontic rule
expressed in terms of cost-benefit should elicit a cheater detection
module, sensible to mental states attributions and thus able to
discriminate intentional rule violations from accidental rule
violations. We tested this prevision by distinguishing the two types
of violations. According to relevance theory, performance in
selection task should improve by increasing cognitive effect and
decreasing cognitive effort. We tested this prevision by focusing
experimental instructions on the rule vs. the action covered by the
rule. In study 1, in which 480 undergraduates participated, we
tested these predictions through a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (type of the rule x
rule formulation x type of violation x experimental instructions)
between-subjects design. In study 2 – carried out by means of a 2 x
2 (rule formulation x type of violation) between-subjects design -
we retested the hypothesis of rule formulation vs. the cheaterdetection
hypothesis through a new version of selection task in
which intentional vs. accidental rule violations were better
discriminated. 240 undergraduates participated in this study.
Results corroborate our hypothesis and challenge the contrasting
assumptions. However, they show that the conditional formulation
of deontic rules produces a lower performance than what is
reported in literature.