Dilemma Experiment Research Articles

Resource heterogeneity leads to unjust effort distribution in climate change mitigation.

Climate change mitigation is a shared global challenge that involves collective action of a set of individuals with different tendencies to cooperation. However, we lack an understanding of the effect of resource inequality when diverse actors interact together towards a common goal. Here, we report the results of a collective-risk dilemma experiment in which groups of individuals were initially given either equal or unequal endowments. We found that the effort distribution was highly inequitable, with participants with fewer resources contributing significantly more to the public goods than the richer −sometimes twice as much. An unsupervised learning algorithm classified the subjects according to their individual behavior, finding the poorest participants within two “generous clusters” and the richest into a “greedy cluster”. Our results suggest that policies would benefit from educating about fairness and reinforcing climate justice actions addressed to vulnerable people instead of focusing on understanding generic or global climate consequences.

Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment

Evidence from studies in international relations, the politics of reform, collective action and price competition suggests that economic agents in social dilemma situations cooperate more to avoid losses than in the pursuit of gains. To test whether the prospect of losses can induce cooperation, we let experimental subjects play the traveler's dilemma in the gain and loss domain. Subjects cooperate substantially more over losses. Furthermore, our results suggest that this treatment effect is best explained by reference-dependent risk preferences and reference-dependent strategic sophistication. We discuss the implications of our results and relate our findings to other experimental games played in the loss domain.

Onymity promotes cooperation in social dilemma experiments.

One of the most elusive scientific challenges for over 150 years has been to explain why cooperation survives despite being a seemingly inferior strategy from an evolutionary point of view. Over the years, various theoretical scenarios aimed at solving the evolutionary puzzle of cooperation have been proposed, eventually identifying several cooperation-promoting mechanisms: kin selection, direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity, network reciprocity, and group selection. We report the results of repeated Prisoner's Dilemma experiments with anonymous and onymous pairwise interactions among individuals. We find that onymity significantly increases the frequency of cooperation and the median payoff per round relative to anonymity. Furthermore, we also show that the correlation between players' ranks and the usage of strategies (cooperation, defection, or punishment) underwent a fundamental shift, whereby more prosocial actions are rewarded with a better ranking under onymity. Our findings prove that reducing anonymity is a valid promoter of cooperation, leading to higher payoffs for cooperators and thus suppressing an incentive-anonymity-that would ultimately favor defection.

The service provider’s dilemma: Applying two behavioural economic theories to CRE purchasing

A better understanding of two important ideas in the discipline of behavioural economics can help corporate real estate executives improve decision making and secure better outcomes for their companies. This paper first reviews the Prisoner’s Dilemma experiment, exploring the value paradox of procurement-led buying processes. The paper then reviews the Winner’s Curse phenomenon, highlighting how such procurement-led processes can actually lead to suboptimal outcomes for purchasers. The paper closes with suggested ways to improve the purchasing process and the decision making of suppliers and purchasers.

Angels and Demons: Using Behavioral Types in a Real-Effort Moral Dilemma to Identify Expert Traits.

In this article, we explore how independently reported measures of subjects' cognitive capabilities, preferences, and sociodemographic characteristics relate to their behavior in a real-effort moral dilemma experiment. To do this, we use a unique dataset, the Chapman Preferences and Characteristics Instrument Set (CPCIS), which contains over 30 standardized measures of preferences and characteristics. We find that simple correlation analysis provides an incomplete picture of how individual measures relate to behavior. In contrast, clustering subjects into groups based on observed behavior in the real-effort task reveals important systematic differences in individual characteristics across groups. However, while we find more differences, these differences are not systematic and difficult to interpret. These results indicate a need for more comprehensive theory explaining how combinations of different individual characteristics impact behavior is needed.

Securing property rights: A dilemma experiment in Austria, Mexico, Mongolia, South Korea and the United States

Secure property rights result from a combination of public enforcement, private protective measures, and voluntary norm-compliance. We conduct a laboratory experiment to study how culture interacts with institutions in shaping individuals' behaviors and group outcomes in a property rights dilemma. The experiment is conducted in five countries: Austria, Mexico, Mongolia, South Korea and the United States. We find that the security of property varies with the experimentally available institutions and country-level indicators such as trust and quality of government. Subjects from countries with higher levels of trust are more likely to abstain initially from theft, devote more resources to production and support funding public protection of property through taxation. Our findings highlight the relevance of cultural and institutional factors, and their interaction, in addressing the collective action problem of safeguarding property rights.

Cooperating Over Losses and Competing Over Gains: A Social Dilemma Experiment

Evidence from studies in international relations, the politics of reform, collective action and price competition suggests that economic agents in social dilemma situations cooperate more to avoid losses than in the pursuit of gains. To test whether the prospect of losses can induce cooperation, we let experimental subjects play the traveler's dilemma in the gain and loss domain. Subjects cooperate substantially more over losses. Our experimental design allows us to show that this treatment effect is best explained by reference-dependent risk preferences and reference-dependent strategic sophistication. We discuss policy implications and relate our findings to other experimental games played in the loss domain.

Development of the computer program for social dilemma experiment in web browser

Development of the computer program for social dilemma experiment in web browser

Leader Punishment and Cooperation in Groups: Experimental Field Evidence from Commons Management in Ethiopia

We conduct a social dilemma experiment in which real-world leaders can punish group members as a third party. Despite facing an identical environment, leaders are found to take remarkably different punishment approaches. The different leader types revealed experimentally explain the relative success of groups in managing their forest commons. Leaders who emphasize equality and efficiency see positive forest outcomes. Antisocial leaders, who punish indiscriminately, see relatively negative forest outcomes. Our results highlight the importance of leaders in collective action, and more generally the idiosyncratic but powerful roles that leaders may play, leading to substantial variation in group cooperation outcomes. (JEL C93, D03, O13, Q23)

Sharing as risk pooling in a social dilemma experiment

In rural economies with missing or incomplete markets, idiosyncratic risk is frequently pooled through informal networks. Idiosyncratic shocks, however, are not limited to private goods but can also restrict an individual from partaking in or benefiting froma collective activity. In these situations, a group must decide whether to provide insurance to the affected member. We describe results of a laboratory experiment designed to test whether a simple sharing institution can sustain risk pooling in a social dilemma with idiosyncratic risk. We tested whether risk could be pooled without a commitment device and, separately, whether effective risk pooling induced greater cooperation in the social dilemma. We found that even in the absence of a commitment device or reputational considerations, subjects voluntarily pooled risk, thereby reducing variance in individual earnings. In spite of effective risk pooling, however, cooperation in the social dilemma was unaffected.

Preferences and beliefs in a sequential social dilemma: a within-subjects analysis

In empirical analyses of games, preferences and beliefs are typically treated as independent. However, if beliefs and preferences interact, this may have implications for the interpretation of observed behavior. Our sequential social dilemma experiment allows us to separate different interaction channels. When subjects play both roles in such experiments, a positive correlation between first- and second-mover behavior is frequently reported. We find that the observed correlation primarily originates via an indirect channel, where second-mover decisions influence beliefs through a consensus effect, and the first-mover decision is a best response to these beliefs. Specifically, beliefs about second-mover cooperation are biased toward own second-mover behavior, and most subjects best respond to stated beliefs. However, we also find evidence for a direct, preference-based channel. When first movers know the true probability of second-mover cooperation, subjects' own second moves still have predictive power regarding their first moves.

Why do people behave altruistically even when nobody would observe their behavior?

Why do people behave altruistically toward others, even in situations where nobody would observe their behavior? We formulated the following hypothesis regarding this question: "Reputations are decided by behaviors in situations that nobody can observe, rather than by behaviors in situations that can be observed by others." The validity of this hypothesis was examined through a Prisoner's Dilemma experiment. In the first stage, participants played the Prisoner's Dilemma game in a situation where nobody could observe them. In the second stage, participants selected another partner in the game, based on information about their behavior in the first stage. The results indicated that participants tended to choose people that behaved altruistically in situations where nobody could observe them. Furthermore, this tendency was stronger with cooperative participants. These results support the hypothesis of this study.

Once Nice, Always Nice? Results on Factors Influencing Nice Behavior from an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Experiment

The reliability of human behavior in situations where cooperation is beneficial for all but is hindered by individual incentives not to cooperate is a central research question in economics and the social sciences. Little is known about how the interaction results of a subject with one partner may affect this subject's behavior when subsequently matched with a new partner. We extend this knowledge by studying the development of cooperation in a repeated prisoner's dilemma experiment. After several rounds, each subject is matched with a new partner. We analyse whether the interaction outcomes with the first partner lead subjects to change their behavior when they interact with the second partner. We focus on niceness as introduced by Axelrod and find statistically significant effects. Mutual cooperation with the first partner is positively correlated with the continuation of a nice strategy, whereas mutual defection leads subjects to give up their nice strategy. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Team reasoning theory: an experimental analysis of common reason to believe and social distance

The aim of this paper is to study the role of the “common reason to believe” (Sugden in Philos Explor 16:165–181, 2003) and the reduction of social distance within the theory of team reasoning. The analysis draws on data collected through a Traveler’s Dilemma experiment. To study the role of the common reason to believe, players’ beliefs in their counterparts’ choices are elicited, and the correlation between the endorsement of team reasoning and beliefs is considered. The relation between social distance and team reasoning is analyzed by introducing a meeting between the two players after the game. We show that the common reason to believe appropriately explains the internal logic of team reasoning and that a reduction of social distance does not produce any statistically significant effect on the probability that team reasoning will be used.

Context Effects in a Negatively Framed Social Dilemma Experiment

A number of studies of the positively-framed voluntary contribution mechanism (VCM) public goods game have examined the role of context on participant behavior. Relatively little attention, however, has been given to the effects of context in negatively-framed VCM games even though this setting is relevant to a wide array of real world challenges, such as common pool resource use and pollution externalities. This study uses a carefully-controlled laboratory experiment to investigate the degree to which the context in which decisions are made influences decision making in a negatively-framed VCM laboratory experiment. The context treatments that we evaluate vary communication, voting, and the status quo of the initial endowment. Results indicate that providing groups the opportunity to communicate and vote significantly reduces choices that impose external costs. Importantly, the pro-social effects of communication and voting are strongest when the status quo endowment is the private account, which generates costs on other participants. This result suggests that the effect of the status quo endowment is a function of whether the social dilemma is framed positively or negatively when communication between participants is allowed.

Strategy Choice in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma

We use a novel experimental design to identify subjects’ strategies in an infinitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma experiment. We ask subjects to design strategies that will play in their place. We find no clear evidence that eliciting strategies affected subjects’ behavior, supporting the validity of this method. We find the chosen strategies include some well-known ones such as Always Defect, Tit-For-Tat and Grim trigger. However, other strategies that are considered to have desirable properties, such as Win-Stay-Lose-Shift, are not prevalent. A majority of subjects use simple strategies that only condition on the previous period’s outcome. We also find that the strategies used to support cooperation change with the parameters of the game. We use the elicited strategies to test our ability to recover strategies using observed cooperate-defect choices and find that we can do so under certain conditions.

Gender differences in social framing effects

In a one-shot Prisoners’ dilemma experiment, female participants are highly sensitive to the social frame. Male participants are not.

Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs?

In an otherwise neutrally described Prisonersʼ dilemma experiment, we document that behavior is more likely to be cooperative when the game is called the Community Game than when it is called the Stock Market Game. However, the difference vanishes when only one of the subjects is in control of her action. The social framing effect also vanishes when the game is played sequentially. These findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Community label triggers a desire to cooperate, but consistent with the hypothesis that social frames are coordination devices. More generally, our evidence indicates that social frames enter peopleʼs beliefs rather than their preferences.

Stochastic evolutionary dynamics resolve the Traveler's Dilemma

Behavior in social dilemmas is often inconsistent with the predictions of classical game theory: people (and a wide variety of other organisms) are more cooperative than might be expected. Here we consider behavior in one such social dilemma, the Traveler's Dilemma, that has received considerable attention in the economics literature but is little known among theoretical biologists. The rules of the game are as follows. Two players each choose a value between R and M, where 0<R<M. If the players choose the same value, both receive that amount. If the players choose different values v1 and v2, where v1<v2, then the player choosing v1 receives v1+R and the player choosing v2 receives v1−R. While the players would maximize their payoffs by both choosing the largest allowed value, M, the Nash equilibrium is to choose the smallest allowed value, R. In behavioral experiments, however, people generally choose values much larger than the minimum and the deviation from the expected equilibrium decreases with R. In this paper, we show that the cooperative behavior observed in the Traveler's Dilemma can be explained in an evolutionary framework. We study stochastic evolutionary dynamics in finite populations with varying intensity of selection and varying mutation rate. We derive analytic results showing that strategies choosing high values can be favored when selection is weak. More generally, selection favors strategies that choose high values if R is small (relative to M) and strategies that choose low values if R is large. Finally, we show that a two-parameter model involving the intensity of selection and the mutation rate can quantitatively reproduce data that from a Traveler's Dilemma experiment. These results demonstrate the power of evolutionary game theory for explaining human behavior in contexts that are challenging for standard economic game theory.

Does Economics Education Make Bad Citizens? The Effect of Economics Education in Japan

Does studying economics discourage students’ cooperative mind? Several surveys conducted in the United States have concluded that the answer is yes. The authors conducted a series of economic experiments and questionnaires to consider the question in Japan. The results of the prisoner's dilemma experiment and public goods questionnaires showed no differences between the behaviors of economics majors and nonmajors. The uniqueness of economics majors was found in their answers to questions concerning whether they behave honestly if they pick up money. The percentage of economics majors who said that they behave honestly was significantly lower than that of students in other disciplines.