IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/vie/viennp/vie0109.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Win Stay, Lose Shift or Imitatation – Only the Choice of Peers Counts

Author

Abstract

Win Stay, Lose Shift as well as imitation strategies for iterated games rely on an aspiration level. With both learning rules a move is repeated unless the pay-off fell short of the aspiration level. I investigate social adaptation mechanisms for the aspiration level and their impact on the efficiency of learning in a large population of agents that repeatedly play one round of a symmetric 2x2 game against randomly chosen opponents. It turns out that if the aspiration level is given by the last payoff of the current opponent the population receives the maximal symmetric payoff of the game in the long run. If the aspiration level is determined by independently chosen agents the outcome is related to the evolutionarly stable strategies. This holds for win stay, lose shift as well as for imitation based learning. These results suggest that the choice of peers can be crucial for the efficiency of learning.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Posch, 2001. "Win Stay, Lose Shift or Imitatation – Only the Choice of Peers Counts," Vienna Economics Papers vie0109, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:vie0109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papersecon.univie.ac.at/RePEc/vie/viennp/vie0109.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karandikar, Rajeeva & Mookherjee, Dilip & Ray, Debraj & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 1998. "Evolving Aspirations and Cooperation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 292-331, June.
    2. Fernando Vega-Redondo & Frédéric Palomino, 1999. "Convergence of aspirations and (partial) cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 465-488.
    3. Borgers, Tilman & Sarin, Rajiv, 2000. "Naive Reinforcement Learning with Endogenous Aspirations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 41(4), pages 921-950, November.
    4. M.C. Boerlijst & M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1997. "Equal Pay for all Prisoners/ The Logic of Contrition," Working Papers ir97073, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    5. Fernando Vega-Redondo, 1997. "The Evolution of Walrasian Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(2), pages 375-384, March.
    6. Josef Hofbauer & Karl H. Schlag, 2000. "Sophisticated imitation in cyclic games," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 523-543.
    7. Colman, Andrew M. & Stirk, Jonathan A., 1998. "Stackelberg reasoning in mixed-motive games: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 279-293, April.
    8. Schlag, Karl H., 1998. "Why Imitate, and If So, How?, : A Boundedly Rational Approach to Multi-armed Bandits," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 130-156, January.
    9. Dixon, Huw David, 2000. "Keeping up with the Joneses: competition and the evolution of collusion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 223-238, October.
    10. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    11. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    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. Oechssler, Jorg, 2002. "Cooperation as a result of learning with aspiration levels," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 405-409, November.
    2. Cui Zhiwei & Zhai Jian & Liu Xuan, 2009. "The Efficiency of Observability and Mutual Linkage," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-36, July.
    3. Altavilla, Carlo & Luini, Luigi & Sbriglia, Patrizia, 2006. "Social learning in market games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 632-652, December.
    4. Dixon, Huw D. & Sbriglia, Patrizia & Somma, Ernesto, 2006. "Learning to collude: An experiment in convergence and equilibrium selection in oligopoly," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 155-167, September.
    5. Costel Andonie & Daniel Diermeier, 2022. "Electoral Institutions with impressionable voters," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(3), pages 683-733, October.
    6. Marcin Dziubinski & Jaideep Roy, 2007. "Endogenous Selection of Aspiring and Rational rules in Coordination Games," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 07-14, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.
    7. Zhang, Lulu & Pan, Qiuhui & He, Mingfeng, 2022. "The influence of donation behavior on the evolution of cooperation in social dilemma," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Alanyali, Murat, 2010. "A note on adjusted replicator dynamics in iterated games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 86-98, January.
    9. Kurokawa, Shun, 2019. "How memory cost, switching cost, and payoff non-linearity affect the evolution of persistence," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 341(C), pages 174-192.
    10. TANABE Yasuo, 2004. "A Result for Approximation of Imitational Behavior in Large Populations," ESRI Discussion paper series 084, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    11. Misato Inaba & Nobuyuki Takahashi, 2019. "Linkage Based on the Kandori Norm Successfully Sustains Cooperation in Social Dilemmas," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, February.
    12. Chengzhang Ma & Wei Cao & Wangheng Liu & Rong Gui & Ya Jia, 2013. "Direct Sum Matrix Game with Prisoner's Dilemma and Snowdrift Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-7, December.
    13. Steffen Huck & Johannes Leutgeb & Ryan Oprea, 2017. "Payoff information hampers the evolution of cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-5, August.
    14. Mark Armstrong & Steffen Huck, 2010. "Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer," CESifo Working Paper Series 2937, CESifo.
    15. Heller, Yuval & Mohlin, Erik, 2018. "Social learning and the shadow of the past," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 426-460.
    16. Niall O'Higgins & Patrizia Sbriglia, 2006. "Are Imitative Strategies Game Specific? Experimental Evidence from Market Games," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 011, University of Siena.
    17. Offerman, Theo & Schotter, Andrew, 2009. "Imitation and luck: An experimental study on social sampling," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 461-502, March.
    18. Alexander Tieman & Harold Houba & Gerard Laan, 2000. "On the level of cooperative behavior in a local-interaction model," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 1-30, February.
    19. Izquierdo, Luis R. & Izquierdo, Segismundo S. & Gotts, Nicholas M. & Polhill, J. Gary, 2007. "Transient and asymptotic dynamics of reinforcement learning in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 259-276, November.
    20. repec:esj:esridp:84 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Robert S. Gazzale, 2009. "Learning to Play Nash from the Best," Department of Economics Working Papers 2009-03, Department of Economics, Williams College.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:vie:viennp:vie0109. 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: Paper Administrator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econ.univie.ac.at/ .

    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.