IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v36y1992i1p183-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximizing Expected Utilities in the Prisoner's Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Louis Marinoff

    (Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia)

Abstract

This article reports the results of a computer experiment with iterated prisoner's dilemmas conducted as an interactive tournament of competing strategies and families of strategies. The purposes of the experiment are to complement Axelrod's previous tournaments and to supplement his findings. For his competitions, Axelrod drew on an unregulated population of strategies. In contrast, the interactive tournament regulates the composition of the strategic population itself. By grouping the competing strategies into families, whose members are related in certain ways, the performance characteristics of particular strategies are studied by varying parameters in their familial program logic. By this means, optimal strategic performance can be “bred†into domesticated populations. Two new methods are developed for assessing strategic robustness: combinatorial analysis and eliminatory ecosystemic competition. The strategy that maximizes expected utility with the most cooperative initial weighting is found to be most robust in the interactive environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Louis Marinoff, 1992. "Maximizing Expected Utilities in the Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 36(1), pages 183-216, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:36:y:1992:i:1:p:183-216
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002792036001007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002792036001007
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002792036001007?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    2. Kessing, Sebastian G. & Konrad, Kai A. & Kotsogiannis, Christos, 2006. "Federal tax autonomy and the limits of cooperation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 317-329, March.
    3. Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003. "Leniency programs and cartel prosecution," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
    4. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Pierre-Pascal Gendron, 1996. "Corporation Tax Asymmetries: An Oligopolistic Supergame Analysis," Working Papers ecpap-96-04, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    6. Germán Coloma, 2002. "Un Modelo Integrado de Depredación y Colusión," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 39(116), pages 123-133.
    7. Lippert, Steffen & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2008. "Internet peering as a network of relations," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 33-49, February.
    8. Lambertini, Luca, 1997. "Prisoners' Dilemma in Duopoly (Super)Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 181-191, November.
    9. van der Heijden, Eline & Potters, Jan & Sefton, Martin, 2009. "Hierarchy and opportunism in teams," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 39-50, January.
    10. Louis Corriveau, 2012. "Game theory and the kula," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(1), pages 106-128, February.
    11. Sylwester Bejger, 2019. "Wholesale fuel price adjustment in Poland: examination of competi-tive performance," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 18(4), pages 385-412, December.
    12. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Suetens, Sigrid, 2019. "Empirical Evidence on Repeated Sequential Games," Other publications TiSEM ff3a441f-e196-4e45-ba59-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Wong, Kit Pong, 2008. "Does market demand volatility facilitate collusion?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 696-703, July.
    14. Wright, Julian, 2013. "Punishment strategies in repeated games: Evidence from experimental markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 91-102.
    15. Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    16. Rasch, Alexander & Wambach, Achim, 2009. "Internal decision-making rules and collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 703-715, November.
    17. Chari, V V & Kehoe, Patrick J, 1990. "Sustainable Plans," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(4), pages 783-802, August.
    18. Bagwell, Kyle & Wolinsky, Asher, 2002. "Game theory and industrial organization," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 49, pages 1851-1895, Elsevier.
    19. Salvatore Piccolo & Aldo Pignataro, 2016. "Consumer Loss Aversion, Product Experimentation and Implicit Collusion," CSEF Working Papers 457, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    20. António Brandão & Joana Pinho & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2014. "Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 429-472, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:jocore:v:36:y:1992:i:1:p:183-216. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.