IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v150y2021ics0960077921005373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local and global information affect cooperation in networked Prisoner’s dilemma games

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, M.
  • Wang, Si-Yi
  • Hu, Xin-Tao
  • Alfaro-Bittner, K.

Abstract

In this letter, we report preliminary experimental evidence of the role of local and global information on networks of a repeated Prisoner’s dilemma game. Namely, we consider three groups of players. In groups one and two, the selection of the game strategies is made upon knowledge of local and global information, respectively. In group three, instead, players are free to choose at each round of the dilemma whether to have access to local or global information for the decision of their next strategic actions. Our experiments reveal that various behavioral patterns are generated in each group. Additionally, we find that agents are more willing to cooperate when they have access to global information, or when they have the option to freely choose between global and local information. On the other hand, with the availability of local information, agents tend to adopt a conservative strategy of defection, where at least they incur no losses. Even though our study has been objectively limited to only few experimental trials (due to the current pandemic situation which has strongly affected our ability of collecting in a same room a consistent number of young University’s students), the results seem to indicate that there is an important role of local and global information which may deserve further investigation as soon as the current limitations are overcome and such kind of experiments could be conducted in a much larger number of trials, and with a much larger number of involved agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, M. & Wang, Si-Yi & Hu, Xin-Tao & Alfaro-Bittner, K., 2021. "Local and global information affect cooperation in networked Prisoner’s dilemma games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:150:y:2021:i:c:s0960077921005373
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077921005373
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111183?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gregory P. Harmer & Derek Abbott, 1999. "Losing strategies can win by Parrondo's paradox," Nature, Nature, vol. 402(6764), pages 864-864, December.
    2. James Andreoni & William Harbaugh & Lise Vesterlund, 2003. "The Carrot or the Stick: Rewards, Punishments, and Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 893-902, June.
    3. Matthias Sutter & Stefan Haigner & Martin G. Kocher, 2010. "Choosing the Carrot or the Stick? Endogenous Institutional Choice in Social Dilemma Situations," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1540-1566.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liao, Hui-Min & Hao, Qing-Yi & Qian, Jia-Li & Wu, Chao-Yun & Guo, Ning & Ling, Xiang, 2023. "Cooperative evolution under the joint influence of local popularity and global popularity," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 439(C).
    2. Lai, Joel Weijia & Cheong, Kang Hao, 2022. "Risk-taking in social Parrondo’s games can lead to Simpson’s paradox," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrej Angelovski & Arianna Galliera & Werner Güth, 2019. "Partial Versus General Compulsory Solidarity: an Experimental Analysis," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 249-279, December.
    2. Boyu Zhang & Cong Li & Hannelore Silva & Peter Bednarik & Karl Sigmund, 2014. "The evolution of sanctioning institutions: an experimental approach to the social contract," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 285-303, June.
    3. Luo-Luo Jiang & Matjaž Perc & Attila Szolnoki, 2013. "If Cooperation Is Likely Punish Mildly: Insights from Economic Experiments Based on the Snowdrift Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-7, May.
    4. Chugunova, Marina & Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2020. "When to leave carrots for sticks: On the evolution of sanctioning institutions in open communities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Jie Chen, 2022. "Carrots and sticks: new evidence in public goods games with heterogeneous groups," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 17(4), pages 1139-1169, October.
    7. Page, Talbot & Putterman, Louis & Garcia, Bruno, 2013. "Voluntary contributions with redistribution: The effect of costly sanctions when one person's punishment is another's reward," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 34-48.
    8. Marco Casari & Luigi Luini, 2012. "Peer punishment in teams: expressive or instrumental choice?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 241-259, June.
    9. Hitoshi Yamamoto & Takahisa Suzuki, 2018. "Effects of beliefs about sanctions on promoting cooperation in a public goods game," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, December.
    10. Nuria Osés-Eraso & Montserrat Viladrich-Grau, 2011. "The sustainability of the commons: giving and receiving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 458-481, November.
    11. Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2013. "Exit, Punishment and Rewards in Commons Dilemmas: An Experimental Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.
    12. Alexander Isakov & David Rand, 2012. "The Evolution of Coercive Institutional Punishment," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 97-109, March.
    13. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    14. Loukas Balafoutas & E. Glenn Dutcher & Florian Lindner & Dmitry Ryvkin, 2017. "The Optimal Allocation Of Prizes In Tournaments Of Heterogeneous Agents," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 461-478, January.
    15. Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "Promoting Cooperation: the Distribution of Reward and Punishment Power," Discussion Papers 2012-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Karakostas, Alexandros & Kocher, Martin G. & Matzat, Dominik & Rau, Holger A. & Riewe, Gerhard, 2023. "The team allocator game: Allocation power in public goods games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 73-87.
    17. Pedro Dal Bo & Andrew Foster & Louis Putterman, 2010. "Institutions and Behavior: Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Democracy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2205-2229, December.
    18. Ann-Christin Posten & Pınar Uğurlar & Sebastian Kube & Joris Lammers, 2024. "Maintaining Cooperation through Vertical Communication of Trust when Removing Sanctions," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 323, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    19. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    20. Fudenberg, Drew & Pathak, Parag A., 2010. "Unobserved punishment supports cooperation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-2), pages 78-86, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:150:y:2021:i:c:s0960077921005373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.