Abstract

Experimental games have previously been used to study principles of human interaction. Many such games are characterized by iterated or repeated designs that model dynamic relationships, including reciprocal cooperation. To enable the study of infinite game repetitions and to avoid endgame effects of lower cooperation toward the final game round, investigators have introduced random termination rules. This study extends previous research that has focused narrowly on repeated Prisoner's Dilemma games by conducting a controlled experiment of two-player, random termination Centipede games involving probabilistic reinforcement and characterized by the longest decision sequences reported in the empirical literature to date (24 decision nodes). Specifically, we assessed mean exit points and cooperation rates, and compared the effects of four different termination rules: no random game termination, random game termination with constant termination probability, random game termination with increasing termination probability, and random game termination with decreasing termination probability. We found that although mean exit points were lower for games with shorter expected game lengths, the subjects' cooperativeness was significantly reduced only in the most extreme condition with decreasing computer termination probability and an expected game length of two decision nodes.

Highlights

  • The results showed that subjects were likely to cooperate more in the infinite-horizon repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma game (RPDG) than in those of a finite length, even if matched for expected game length

  • All treatment conditions with random computer termination were controlled for average termination probability across the 24 decision nodes

  • Our results revealed large differences between the four treatment conditions, with subjects’ mean exit points varying across conditions

Read more

Summary

Method

2.1 Subjects A total of 148 undergraduate students from the University of Leicester with a mean age of 19.34 years (SD = 2.86 years) participated in the experiment (see Table 1). The mean cash remuneration of the selected subjects was £14.36 ($18.00). We chose to select one game for payment randomly rather than calculating an average across all games, because previous literature provided evidence that this method prevents subjects from responding to the individual game repetitions merely as parts of one large “supergame” (Bardsley, et al, 2010; Bolle, 1990; Cubitt, Starmer, & Sugden, 1998). We wanted to ensure that subjects responded to every game as a separate decision context that could determine their total payoff in the experiment. Selecting only one subject per session for payment is common practice in research on experimental games, and informal feedback from subjects confirmed that they were sufficiently motivated by the chance of winning the money

Design
Results
Discussion
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