Social Preferences and Cooperation: Beliefs, Robustness, and the Limits of Altruism

Abstract

We study a mechanism of cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma (PD). Incorporating social preferences as efficiency concerns into the PD game, we study how altruism translates into cooperation. Under complete information, cooperation requires the opponent's altruism to clear a threshold. We then introduce a subjective extension of Bayesian Nash equilibrium that relaxes the Common Prior Assumption, letting players hold heterogeneous, potentially misspecified beliefs about each other's altruistic type. Cooperation then depends on beliefs about altruism rather than altruism itself, and can be sustained even when opponents are, on average, only weakly altruistic. When fear of exploitation dominates the temptation to defect, beliefs about the opponent's cooperation become strategic complements, so a cooperative and an uncooperative equilibrium can coexist under identical payoffs and an identical, correctly specified prior. Using multiplier preferences, we then study how robust this belief-driven cooperation is to model misspecification. Cooperation is fragile: it survives only above a threshold level of confidence in one's own belief, and can unravel even when the belief itself correctly supports cooperation. As a formal extension, the same robust-control apparatus, applied to a player's action choice, nests Nash equilibrium, Bayesian Nash equilibrium, and logit Quantal Response Equilibrium as limiting cases. Cooperation depends less on how altruistic agents are than on what they believe about each other, and how confident they are that this belief is right.