IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03188213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Not all Prisoner’s Dilemma games are equal : Incentives, social preferences, and cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Frederic Moisan

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Robert ten Brincke
  • Ryan O. Murphy
  • Cleotilde Gonzalez

Abstract

The Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) is a classic decision problem where 2 players simultaneously must decide whether to cooperate or to act in their own narrow self-interest. The PD game has been used to model many naturally occurring interactive situations, at the personal, organizational, and social levels, in which there exists a tension between individual material gain and the common good. At least 2 factors may influence the emergence of cooperative behavior in this well-known collective action problem: the incentive structure of the game itself, and the intrinsic social preferences of each of the players. We present a framework that integrates these 2 factors in an effort to account for patterns of high or low cooperation from repeated choice interactions. In an experiment using a collection of different PD games, and a measure of individual social preferences, we identify regions of PD games in which (a) cooperation is independent of social preferences; (b) nice people can be exploited; and (c) being nice is consistently rewarded.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederic Moisan & Robert ten Brincke & Ryan O. Murphy & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2018. "Not all Prisoner’s Dilemma games are equal : Incentives, social preferences, and cooperation," Post-Print hal-03188213, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03188213
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-03188213v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-03188213v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unknown, 1967. "Index," 1967 Conference, August 21-30, 1967, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 209796, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Dawes, Robyn M & Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: Cooperation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 187-197, Summer.
    3. Rand, David Gertler & Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Ellingson, Tore & Nowak, Martin A., 2009. "Positive Interactions Promote Public Cooperation," Scholarly Articles 3804483, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    4. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2006. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, in: S. Kolm & Jean Mercier Ythier (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 8, pages 615-691, Elsevier.
    5. Robert Axelrod, 1967. "Conflict of interest: an axiomatic approach," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 11(1), pages 87-99, March.
    6. repec:grz:wpsses:2013-05 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Frank Schweitzer & Luca Verginer & Giacomo Vaccario, 2020. "Should The Government Reward Cooperation? Insights From An Agent-Based Model Of Wealth Redistribution," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Kurt A. Ackermann & Ryan O. Murphy, 2019. "Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    3. Hanshu Zhang & Frederic Moisan & Palvi Aggarwal & Cleotilde Gonzalez, 2022. "Truth-Telling in a Sender-Receiver Game : Social Value Orientation and Incentives," Post-Print hal-04325602, HAL.
    4. Simon Gaechter & Kyeongtae Lee & Martin Sefton, 2020. "Risk, Temptation, and Efficiency in Prisoner's Dilemmas," Discussion Papers 2020-15, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    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. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    2. Zhongwei Feng & Chunqiao Tan & Jinchun Zhang & Qiang Zeng, 2021. "Bargaining Game with Altruistic and Spiteful Preferences," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 277-300, April.
    3. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2018. "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 31-43.
    4. Nikos Nikiforakis & Helen Mitchell, 2014. "Mixing the carrots with the sticks: third party punishment and reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, March.
    5. Dohmen, Thomas, 2014. "Behavioral labor economics: Advances and future directions," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 71-85.
    6. Felix Koelle, 2012. "Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Privileged Groups: The Role of Capability and Valuation on Public Goods Provision," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 03-08, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    7. Mehmet Karacuka & Asad Zaman, 2012. "The empirical evidence against neoclassical utility theory: a review of the literature," International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(4), pages 366-414.
    8. Phillip Bonacich, 1970. "Putting the dilemma back into Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 14(3), pages 379-387, September.
    9. Simon Gaechter, 2014. "Human Pro-Social Motivation and the Maintenance of Social Order," Discussion Papers 2014-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Phillip Bonacich & Gerald H. Shure & James P. Kahan & Robert J. Meeker, 1976. "Cooperation and Group Size in the N-Person Prisoners' Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 20(4), pages 687-706, December.
    11. Espín, Antonio M. & Correa, Manuel & Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto, 2019. "Patience predicts cooperative synergy: The roles of ingroup bias and reciprocity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    12. Bault, Nadège & Fahrenfort, Johannes J. & Pelloux, Benjamin & Ridderinkhof, K. Richard & van Winden, Frans, 2017. "An affective social tie mechanism: Theory, evidence, and implications," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 152-175.
    13. Despoina Alempaki & Gönül Doğan & Silvia Saccardo, 2019. "Deception and reciprocity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 980-1001, December.
    14. Heineck, Guido & Süssmuth, Bernd, 2013. "A different look at Lenin’s legacy: Social capital and risk taking in the Two Germanies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 789-803.
    15. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    16. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2015. "Demand for fixed-price multi-year contracts: Experimental evidence from insurance decisions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 171-194, October.
    18. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    19. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    20. Hoffmann, Magnus & Kolmar, Martin, 2017. "Distributional preferences in probabilistic and share contests," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-139.

    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:hal:journl:hal-03188213. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.