Abstract

Game spaces in which an organism must repeatedly compete with an opponent for mutually exclusive outcomes are critical methodologies for understanding decision-making under pressure. In the non-transitive game rock, paper, scissors (RPS), the only technique that guarantees the lack of exploitation is to perform randomly in accordance with mixed-strategy. However, such behavior is thought to be outside bounded rationality and so decision-making can become deterministic, predictable, and ultimately exploitable. This review identifies similarities across economics, neuroscience, nonlinear dynamics, human, and animal cognition literatures, and provides a taxonomy of RPS strategy. RPS strategies are discussed in terms of (a) whether the relevant computations require sensitivity to item frequency, the cyclic relationships between responses, or the outcome of the previous trial, and (b) whether the strategy is framed around the self or other. The negative implication of this taxonomy is that despite the differences in cognitive economy and recursive thought, many of the identified strategies are behaviorally isomorphic. This makes it difficult to infer strategy from behavior. The positive implication is that this isomorphism can be used as a novel design feature in furthering our understanding of the attribution, agency, and acquisition of strategy in RPS and other game spaces.

Highlights

  • Competitive Decision-MakingThere are a number of situations where an organism must repeatedly compete with others for mutually exclusive outcomes [1,2,3]): There will be only one Prime Minister or President, only one winner at Scrabble, only one bird able to forage nectar from any given flower

  • As [33] observe, if a computer opponent plays one item more often than another human participants will play the appropriate counter-item with increased frequency

  • S1), and an other-downgrade strategy (CWR) representing a revised self-outcome strategy and an other-downgrade strategy (CWR) representing a revised self-outcome strategy where repeats are associated with losses, downgrades associated with draws, and upgrades associated with wins (Supplementary Table S2)

Read more

Summary

Competitive Decision-Making

There are a number of situations where an organism must repeatedly compete with others for mutually exclusive outcomes [1,2,3]): There will be only one Prime Minister or President, only one winner at Scrabble, only one bird able to forage nectar from any given flower. Contexts where random performance is implicitly optimal such as competitive zero-sums game are more liberal tests of the ability to express mixed strategy [29]. To understand the varieties of predictable non-random performance on offer, an RPS strategic taxonomy is set out in terms of frequency-, cycle-, or outcome-based processes initiated from the perspective of the self or the other, based on empirical data from this game

Frequency-Based Strategy
Cycle-Based Strategy
Outcome-Based Strategy
Behavioral Isomorphism in RPS Strategy
Differences in Cognitive Economy
Findings
Differences in Recursive Thought
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call