Beliefs, Learning, and Personality in the Indefinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma

Gill, David; Rosokha, Yaroslav

doi:10.2139/ssrn.4196265

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, research suggests that cooperation is more abundant when it is risk‐dominant; in this case, risk‐dominance means that players prefer to cooperate when they think it is equally likely that the co‐player adopts ALLD or GRIM (Blonski et al, 2011; Dal Bó & Fréchette, 2011). In particular, a higher reward R leads to more cooperation (Gill & Rosokha, 2020), and a higher temptation T leads to less cooperation. Dal Bó and Fréchette (2019) noted that when the reward is low, players are more likely to open with a defection on the first round.…”

Section: Impact Of Design Choices and Parameters On Human Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is the so‐called strategy method (Selten, 1967). Here, participants either chose from a menu of predefined strategies, or they define their memory‐1 conditional strategies (i.e., for any outcome of the previous round, participants define with which probability they wish to cooperate in the next round, see Dal Bó & Fréchette, 2019; Gill & Rosokha, 2020). This method has the advantage that the results are clear; we can see which existing strategies are preferred.…”

Section: Evolving Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Papers that allow for longer memory either find that it is not necessary (Dal Bó & Fréchette, 2019), or that players simply prefer a more lenient version of TFT . This can be modulated by the payoffs chosen as demonstrated by Gill and Rosokha (2020): the higher the reward, the more lenient the strategies. One drawback of these results, especially when strategies are estimated from behavior, is that when players cooperate from beginning to the end of an interaction, there is no way to distinguish among several possible strategies.…”

Section: Evolving Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Direct reciprocity among humans

Rossetti,

Hilbe

2023

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Direct reciprocity is the tendency to repay others' cooperation. This tendency can be crucial to maintain cooperation in evolving populations. Once direct reciprocity evolves, individuals have a long‐run interest to cooperate, even if it is costly in the short run. The major theoretical framework to describe reciprocal behavior is the repeated prisoner's dilemma. Over the past decades, this game has been the major workhorse to predict when reciprocal cooperation ought to evolve, and which strategies individuals are supposed to adopt. Herein, we compare these predictions with the empirical evidence from experiments with human subjects. From a theory‐driven perspective, humans represent an ideal test case, because they give researchers the most flexibility to tailor the experimental design to the assumptions of a model. Overall, we find that theoretical models describe well in which situations people cooperate. However, in the important case of “indefinitely repeated games,” they have difficulties to predict which strategies people use.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Design Choices and Parameters On Human Cooperationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolving Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolving Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct reciprocity among humans

Rossetti,

Hilbe

2023

Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, a decision not to read the experimental instructions carefully and instead to learn by doing might be perfectly reasonable based on rational ignorance (Downs et al. 1957; Jerath and Ren 2021), or on preexisting beliefs or assumptions, for example, that the instructions are likely to be uninformative, useless, or even deceptive (Erev 2020; Gill and Rosokha 2020). Such behavior is similar to a decision not to read the instructions for a new appliance, but rather to learn how to use it through trial and error.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention! Do We Really Need Attention Checks?

Roth,

Yakobi

2024

Behavioral Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is ongoing debate over the usefulness of and need for attention checks in online experiments. This paper investigates the value of these tests in decisions‐from‐experience (i.e., multi‐trial repeated choice) tasks. In five studies (Ntotal = 1519), we comprehensively compared the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants (i.e., those who passed or failed a simple attention check) among online participants; and also compared those results to the results of lab studies reported elsewhere. We found meaningful differences between the behavior of attentive and inattentive participants even at the first trial. Overall, attentive participants were more likely to notice less‐obvious average values of the different alternatives, while inattentive participants exhibited higher sensitivity to typical outcomes. The findings show that even one simple attention test is sufficient to differentiate between attentive and inattentive participants in repetitive tasks. Importantly, our results fully replicated three previously run lab studies among attentive participants, but not inattentive ones. This finding highlights the importance of using attention tests to avoid spurious conclusions.

show abstract

Beliefs, Learning, and Personality in the Indefinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma

Cited by 2 publications

References 95 publications

Direct reciprocity among humans

Direct reciprocity among humans

Attention! Do We Really Need Attention Checks?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About