Maximizing Difference Game Research Articles

Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models.

The present research tested 2 competing models specifying how 2 traits (concern with the well-being of others and self-control) interact to predict forgiveness. According to the compensatory model, forgiveness requires being high on either trait; according to the synergistic model, forgiveness requires being high on both traits. Two preliminary studies demonstrated the main effect of trait (Study 1a) and primed (Study 1b) self-control on forgiveness. Three primary studies consistently supported the compensatory model in predicting willingness to forgive a partner who behaves noncooperatively in a 2-alternative prisoner's dilemma (Study 2), a continuous give-some dilemma (Study 3), and a 2-alternative maximizing difference game (Study 4). Among proselfs or those low in trait forgiveness, trait self-control positively related to forgiveness, suggesting that self-control can compensate for a lack of concern with others' well-being. Implications for theory and research on forgiveness are discussed.

Intuitive Economists in a Social Environment: A Reexamination of the Effect of Interaction Outcomes on Interdependent Behavior

This study examined the proposition that interdependent behavior is related to two independent utility functions. Nonsocial utility is a measure of the intrinsic worth of rewards, which is unrelated to the circumstances of their attainment. Hence, it primarily affects individualistic choices. Social utility expresses the effect of interaction outcomes on the recipient's self-esteem, and, therefore, it underlies competitiveness. Social comparison models suggest that social utility is sensitive to the proximity between interacting parties. Three Maximizing Difference Game experiments showed that, given low nonsocial utility outcomes, high social proximity increased participants' attention to the outcomes of the other player as well as the frequency of competitive choices. High nonsocial utility outcomes strengthened individualistic behavior, and reversed the effect of proximity on competitiveness. This reversal was attributed to normative concerns that were predicted to become salient when the social and nonsocial utilities of interaction outcomes are both high.

Equity and individual preferences in an MDG

AbstractBefore participating in an Maximizing Difference Game (MDG) subjects were classified with the help of a social motive test (GDG, Liebrand, 1984) as having a cooperative, an individualistic or a Competitive preference for own/other outcome distributions. Thereafter subjects did make choices in an MDG. A status (high, equal, low, no feedback) × matrix (advantage: 8/6, disadvantage 6/81) × preference (competitive, individualistic, cooperative)‐design was employed, whereas one control condition, i.e. equal statuslmatrix equal (616) was added.Equity theory could explain the data rather well. Support was found for the status hypothesis, i.e. high status subjects made more D‐choices in an MDG than equal status subjects; equal status subjects made more D‐choices than low status subjects, and for the matrix hypothesis, i.e. matrix disadvantage subjects made more D‐choices than subjects playing in a matrix advantage position. Equity theory could also explain a significant status × matrix interaction effect. Support was partly found for a preference hypothesis: Competitors made more D‐choices than cooperatives, while contrary to the hypothesis, individualists behaved more like competitors.

Power difference between players and level of matrix as determinants of competition in a MDG

AbstractAt first, it was demonstrated that social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) predicting a need for moderate (instead of maximal) superiority, could reconcile a number of disparate results of earlier Maximizing Difference Game (MDG) experiments. Using the same theory, it was then further predicted that high power players in an asymmetrical MDG would compete less than their inferior opponents or than equal power players in a symmetrical MDG and that the inferior and equal power players would not differ in competition. The data of an experiment, involving an asymmetrical (8/6) MDG matrix and two symmetrical MDG matrices (8/8 and 6/6), generally confirmed these predictions, but it was observed serendipitously that the high 8/8 symmetrical matrix yielded more competition than the lower 6/6 symmetrical matrix. An extended replication of this variable with five linearly related MDG matrices (4/4, 5/5, 6/6, 8/8 and 12/12) showed a similar result, namely most competition in the highest matrices and least in the lowest ones. The finding was interpreted in terms of the competitive motivation of the players and the low cost of competition in the highest matrices.

Effects of Sex Role in a Maximizing Difference Game

Same-sex dyads of Canadian males and females and mixed-sex dyads played 100 trials of a maximizing difference game in a replication of an experiment which used Flemish subjects performed by McNeel et al. (1972). It was found, in contrast to the Belgian investigation, and in line with earlier experiments in the United States which had used the Prisoner's Dilemma game, that the like-sex female dyads were most competitive, followed by the like-sex male dyads. The males and females in the mixed-sex dyads were least competitive and not different from one another. Simply being paired with a female had an immediate effect on the males but the females appeared to be more affected by the response strategy of the males. It was argued that the most likely factor accounting for the results was the greater use of "tit-for-tat" responding by the males. Research concerned with cultural differences and the antecedents of strategy preferences is suggested.

Indian and Canadian Choice Behaviour in a Maximizing Difference Game and in a Game of Chicken

en

Indian and Canadian Choice Behaviour in a Mixed-Motive Game

en

Sociometric choice, visual presence, and game-playing behavior

This study reports the effects of prior patterns of social interaction measured sociometrically, and visual presence upon Ss' cooperative and competitive choice behavior during 100 trials of a Maximizing Difference Game. The results of the present study, which are consistent with prior studies, indicate: (a) “strangers” play to maximize the difference between their own and the other's outcomes more frequently than non-friends who do so more frequently than friends; and (b) the opportunity to view the other player does not affect Ss' choice behavior.

Minimizing differences in a maximizing difference game.

Minimizing differences in a maximizing difference game.

Development of competitive game behavior in children across two cultures

An identical 2 × 3 design was investigated in the United States and in Belgium. Twenty-eight male dyads taken from the more intelligent part of each of three grade levels (second, fourth, and sixth) played a Maximizing Difference Game over 100 trials. One-half of the dyads were displayed both own and other's cumulative score, the other half were only displayed own cumulative score. The results clearly indicate that: (a) The competitive choice is the dominant response and becomes even more dominant over trial blocks; (b) older children make more competitive responses than younger children in both cultures; (c) double score feedback yields more competitive responses in both cultures; (d) young American children make more competitive choices than young Belgians; at sixth grade, however, they are equally competitive.

Personality impression formation in a Maximizing Difference game

Introduction Investigators interested in behavior in the Prisoner's Dilemma game situation have focused a good deal of attention on the effects of sending the subjects programmed strategies. The subject, while believing that he is playing against another subject, is actually playing against a strategy selected by the experimenter. Becker and McClintock (1967) have summarized the findings of such studies by noting that, at best, such strategies have a small effect upon the behavior of the players. These experiments have, for the most part, employed a standard Prisoner's Dilemma matrix. However, McClintock and Messick (1965) have suggested that a relaxed version of the Prisoner's Dilemma game, known as the Maximizing Difference game, may be more sensitive to factors which could induce greater cooperation. A Maximizing Difference matrix is shown in Figure 1. This matrix has the advantage of establishing a unitary motive for the competitive response, i.e., the desire to maximize the difference between one's own payoff and that of one's opponent. Gallo (1966), using a Maximizing Difference matrix, compared the results of fair games, random strategies of from 80 to 100