The impact of the termination rule on cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma experiment
AbstractCooperation in prisoner's dilemma games can usually be sustained only if the game has an infinite horizon. We analyze to what extent the theoretically crucial distinction of finite vs. infinite-horizon games is reflected in the outcomes of a prisoner's dilemma experiment. We compare three different experimental termination rules in four treatments: a known finite end, an unknown end, and two variants with a random termination rule (with a high and with a low continuation probability, where cooperation can occur in a subgame-perfect equilibrium only with the high probability). We find that the termination rules do not significantly affect average cooperation rates. Specifically, employing a random termination rule does not cause significantly more cooperation compared to a known finite horizon, and the continuation probability does not significantly affect average cooperation rates either. However, the termination rules may influence cooperation over time and end-game behavior. Further, the (expected) length of the game significantly increases cooperation rates. The results suggest that subjects may need at least some learning opportunities (like repetitions of the supergame) before significant backward induction arguments in finitely repeated game have force. --
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE) in its series DICE Discussion Papers with number 19.
Date of creation: 2011
Date of revision:
Prisoner's dilemma; Repeated games; Infinite-horizon games; Experimental economics;
Other versions of this item:
- Hans-Theo Normann & Brian Wallace, 2012. "The impact of the termination rule on cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 707-718, August.
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
- C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
- D21 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Firm Behavior: Theory
- D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-05-30 (All new papers)
- NEP-EVO-2011-05-30 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2011-05-30 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-GTH-2011-05-30 (Game Theory)
- NEP-HPE-2011-05-30 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2012.
"Which Way to Cooperate,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 1042-1068, 09.
- Kaplan, Todd & Ruffle, Bradley, . "Which Way to Cooperate," Working Papers WP2011/5, University of Haifa, Department of Economics, revised 04 Oct 2011.
- Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2011. "Which Way to Cooperate," Working Papers 1105, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
- Kaplan, Todd & Ruffle, Bradley, 2007. "Which way to cooperate," MPRA Paper 3381, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999.
"A Theory Of Fairness, Competition, And Cooperation,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868, August.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., . "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1999. "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Munich Reprints in Economics 20650, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, . "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," IEW - Working Papers 004, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Gonzalez, Luis G. & Guth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria, 2005. "When does the game end? Public goods experiments with non-definite and non-commonly known time horizons," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 221-226, August.
- Henrik Orzen, 2006.
"Counterintuitive Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies,"
2006-22, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Henrik Orzen, 2008. "Counterintuitive number effects in experimental oligopolies," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 390-401, December.
- Henrik Orzen, 2006. "Counterintuitive Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies," Discussion Papers 2006-22, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Lisa Bruttel & Ulrich Kamecke, 2012. "Infinity in the lab. How do people play repeated games?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 205-219, February.
- Sigrid Suetens & Jan Potters, 2007.
"Bertrand colludes more than Cournot,"
Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 71-77, March.
- Suetens, S. & Potters, J.J.M., 2007. "Bertrand colludes more than Cournot," Open Access publications from Tilburg University urn:nbn:nl:ui:12-302953, Tilburg University.
- SUETENS, Sigrid & POTTERS, Jan, 2005. "Bertrand colludes more than Cournot," Working Papers 2005037, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
- Selten,Reinhard & Mitzkewitz,Michael & Uhlich,Gerald, .
"Duopoly strategies programmed by experienced players,"
Discussion Paper Serie B
106, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Reinhard Selten & Michael Mitzkewitz & Gerald R. Uhlich, 1997. "Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 517-556, May.
- Engle-Warnick, Jim & Slonim, Robert L., 2004. "The evolution of strategies in a repeated trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 553-573, December.
- Pedro Dal Bó, 2002.
"Cooperation Under the Shadow of the Future: Experimental Evidence from Infinitely Repeated Games,"
2002-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
- Pedro Dal B�, 2005. "Cooperation under the Shadow of the Future: Experimental Evidence from Infinitely Repeated Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1591-1604, December.
- Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982.
"Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
- David Kreps & Paul Milgrom & John Roberts & Bob Wilson, 2010. "Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma," Levine's Working Paper Archive 239, David K. Levine.
- Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Krishna, Vijay, 1985. "Finitely Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 905-22, July.
- Holt, Charles A, 1985. "An Experimental Test of the Consistent-Conjectures Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 314-25, June.
- James Andreoni & John H Miller, 1997.
"Rational Cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma: experimental evidence,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
670, David K. Levine.
- Andreoni, James A & Miller, John H, 1993. "Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(418), pages 570-85, May.
- Stahl, Dale II, 1991. "The graph of Prisoners' Dilemma supergame payoffs as a function of the discount factor," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 368-384, August.
- Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke, 2012. "Finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma experiments without a commonly known end," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 23-47, February.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Vera Angelova & Lisa V. Bruttel & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke, 2013. "Can Subgame Perfect Equilibrium Threats Foster Cooperation? An Experimental Test Of Finite-Horizon Folk Theorems," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 1345-1356, 04.
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page. reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.