IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v2y1990i4p449-470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Punishment in Iterated Chicken and Prisoner's Dilemma Games

Author

Listed:
  • RICHARD JANKOWSKI

    (University of Arizona)

Abstract

Iterated playing of noncooperative games can result in full cooperation. Repeated playing of the noncooperative game permits the sucker to punish the initial defector by defecting in subsequent plays. This article shows that many n- person prisoner's dilemma (PD) games have chicken games embedded within them. In addition, positive externalities produce embedded chicken games, as physical coercion does when used to punish defectors. This characteristic has substantial implications for various solutions to iterated PD games. The difficulty encountered in chicken games is that the sucker must punish oneself in order to punish the defector. It is shown that various versions of the folk theorem, such as those by Friedman, Fudenberg and Maskin, and Abreu, do not extend to the chicken games under a number of realistic assumptions. Hence iterated playing by rational, self-interested actors will not result in cooperative behavior. What is needed to induce cooperative solutions is the presence of vengeful personalities who induce the evolution of metanorms.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Jankowski, 1990. "Punishment in Iterated Chicken and Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Rationality and Society, , vol. 2(4), pages 449-470, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:2:y:1990:i:4:p:449-470
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463190002004004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463190002004004
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463190002004004?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.
    2. Bianco, William T. & Bates, Robert H., 1990. "Cooperation by Design: Leadership, Structure, and Collective Dilemmas," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(1), pages 133-147, March.
    3. Abreu, Dilip, 1988. "On the Theory of Infinitely Repeated Games with Discounting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 383-396, March.
    4. Axelrod, Robert, 1986. "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1095-1111, December.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Eric Maskin, 2008. "The Folk Theorem In Repeated Games With Discounting Or With Incomplete Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 11, pages 209-230, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. R. Isaac & David Schmidtz & James Walker, 1989. "The assurance problem in a laboratory market," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 217-236, September.
    7. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1979. "Equilibrium in supergames with the overtaking criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-9, August.
    8. Jack Hirshleifer, 1983. "From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 371-386, 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. Richard Jankowski, 1991. "Nash Versus Evolutionary Equilibria and the Folk Theorem," Rationality and Society, , vol. 3(3), pages 386-389, July.
    2. M. A. Pisauro & E. F. Fouragnan & D. H. Arabadzhiyska & M. A. J. Apps & M. G. Philiastides, 2022. "Neural implementation of computational mechanisms underlying the continuous trade-off between cooperation and competition," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    3. Trudi C. Miller, 1992. "The Implications of Self-Interest," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(4), pages 395-412, October.
    4. Douglas D. Heckathorn, 1998. "Collective Action, Social Dilemmas And Ideology," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(4), pages 451-479, November.

    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. Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2005. "Managerial incentives and collusive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1501-1523, August.
    2. Abreu, Dilip & Dutta, Prajit K & Smith, Lones, 1994. "The Folk Theorem for Repeated Games: A NEU Condition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(4), pages 939-948, July.
    3. van Veelen, Matthijs & García, Julián, 2019. "In and out of equilibrium II: Evolution in repeated games with discounting and complexity costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 113-130.
    4. Luca Lambertini, 2000. "Technology and Cartel Stability under Vertical Differentiation," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(4), pages 421-442, November.
    5. Matthijs van Veelen, 2007. "Evolution of Strategies in Repeated Games with Discounting," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 06-115/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Olivier GOSSNER, 2020. "The Robustness of Incomplete Penal Codes in Repeated Interactions," Working Papers 2020-29, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    7. Balanquit, Romeo, 2010. "Tolerance, Cooperation, and Equilibrium Restoration in Repeated Games," MPRA Paper 21877, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Andriy Zapechelnyuk & Ro'i Zultan, 2008. "Altruism, Partner Choice, and Fixed-Cost Signalling," Levine's Working Paper Archive 122247000000002199, David K. Levine.
    9. Labrecciosa Paola & Colombo Luca, 2010. "Technology Uncertainty and Market Collusion," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-17, March.
    10. Pablo Hernandez-Lagos & Dylan Minor & Dana Sisak, 2017. "Do people who care about others cooperate more? Experimental evidence from relative incentive pay," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 809-835, December.
    11. Aramendia, Miguel, 2006. "Asymmetric finite punishments in repeated games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 234-239, August.
    12. Robles Jack, 2011. "Stochastic Stability in Finitely Repeated Two Player Games," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, April.
    13. Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2002. "Globalization and Cooperative Relations," CEPR Discussion Papers 3522, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Aitor Ciarreta & Carlos Gutiérrez-Hita, 2012. "Collusive behaviour under cost asymmetries when firms compete in supply functions," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 106(3), pages 195-219, July.
    15. Opp, Marcus M., 2010. "Tariff wars in the Ricardian Model with a continuum of goods," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 212-225, March.
    16. Tarui, Nori, 2007. "Inequality and outside options in common-property resource use," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 214-239, May.
    17. Dou, Winston Wei & Ji, Yan & Wu, Wei, 2021. "Competition, profitability, and discount rates," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 582-620.
    18. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2008. "An Approximate Folk Theorem with Imperfect Private Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 14, pages 309-330, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. V. V. Chari, 1988. "Time consistency and optimal policy design," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Fall, pages 17-31.
    20. Rees, Ray, 1993. "Collusive Equilibrium in the Great Salt Duopoly," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 833-848, July.

    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:ratsoc:v:2:y:1990:i:4:p:449-470. 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: .

    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.