scholarly journals Do people imitate when making decisions? Evidence from a spatial Prisoner’s Dilemma experiment

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 200618
Author(s):  
Jelena Grujić ◽  
Tom Lenaerts

How do people decide which action to take? This question is best answered using Game Theory, which has proposed a series of decision-making mechanisms that people potentially use. In network simulations, wherein games are repeated and pay-off differences can be observed, those mechanisms often rely on imitation of successful behaviour. Surprisingly, little to no evidence has been provided about whether people actually imitate more successful opponents when altering their actions in that context. By comparing two experimental treatments wherein participants play the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game in a lattice, we aim to answer whether more successful actions are imitated. While in the first treatment, participants have the possibility to use pay-off differences in making their decision, the second treatment hinders such imitation as no information about the gains is provided. If imitation of the more successful plays a role then there should be a difference in how players switch from cooperation to defection between both treatments. Although, cooperation and pay-off levels do not appear to be significantly different between both treatments, detailed analysis shows that there are behavioural differences: when confronted with a more successful co-player, the focal player will imitate her behaviour as the switching is related to the experienced pay-off inequality.

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
William Press

This is the story of a minor discovery in mathematical game theory. It concerns the prisoner’s dilemma game, which, played once, involves little strategy. But consider the iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) game. In the IPD, there is information in the previous plays, which each player can use to devise a superior strategy that remains self-interested.


1984 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick M. Gardner ◽  
Terry L. Corbin ◽  
Janelle S. Beltramo ◽  
Gary S. Nickell

Cooperation in pairs of rats playing the prisoner's dilemma game was investigated. Six pairs of animals were taught to make either cooperative or uncooperative responses by running to one or the other end of a T-maze. Two T-mazes were joined together such that animals could respond simultaneously. Animals were run under conditions in which visual communication was present and absent. Mutually uncooperative responses were the most common and mutually cooperative behaviors the least preferred. Introduction of a barrier between the mazes, which removed visual communication between pairs, sharply accentuated uncooperative behavior. Similarities of the present findings to results with human subjects and the implications of using game theory for studying cooperative behavior in animals are discussed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shun Kurokawa

Reciprocity has long been regarded as a potential explanatory mechanism for the maintenance of cooperation. However, a possible problematic case relevant to the theory of reciprocity evolution arises when the information about an opponent’s behavior is imperfect. Although it has been confirmed that imperfect information disturbs the evolution of reciprocity, this argument is based on the assumption that those who attempt to cooperate always succeed in doing so. In reality, mistakes can occur, and previous studies have demonstrated that this can sway the evolution of reciprocity. In this study, removing the assumption that mistakes do not occur, we examine whether imperfect information disturbs the evolution of reciprocity in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game with errors in behavior. It might be expected that when mistakes occur, reciprocity can evolve more in the case of imperfect information than in the case of perfect information. This is because in the former case, reciprocators can miss defections incurred by other reciprocators’ mistakes owing to imperfect information, which allows cooperation to persist. Contrary to this expectation, however, our analysis reveals that imperfect information still disturbs the evolution of reciprocity when mistakes occur. Additionally, we have determined that the condition under which reciprocity evolves remains unaffected, whatever reciprocators subsequently do when the opponent's last behavior was missed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document