IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kch/wpaper/sdes-2015-12.html

The approval mechanism solves the prisoner's dilemma theoretically and experimentally

Author

Listed:
  • Tatsuyoshi Saijo

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology)

  • Yoshitaka Okano

    (School of Economics and Management, Kochi University of Technology)

  • Takafumi Yamakawa

    (Osaka University)

Abstract

Consider a situation where players in a prisoner's dilemma game can approve or reject the other's choice such as cooperation or defection. If both players approve the other's choice, the outcome is the one they chose, whereas if either one rejects the other's choice, the outcome is the one when both defect, which we name the approval mechanism herein (this is inspired by the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction). Experimentally, we find that the cooperation rate with the approval mechanism is 90% in round one and averages 93.2% across the 19 rounds. The questionnaire analysis also allows us to find that subjects' behavior is consistent with subgame perfect elimination of weakly dominated strategies (SPEWDS) rather than Nash equilibrium (NE) or subgame perfect Nash equilibrium (SPNE) behavior. Theoretically, this mechanism implements cooperation in SPEWDS, but not in NE or SPNE.

Suggested Citation

  • Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Yoshitaka Okano & Takafumi Yamakawa, 2015. "The approval mechanism solves the prisoner's dilemma theoretically and experimentally," Working Papers SDES-2015-12, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2015.
    • Handle: RePEc:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.souken.kochi-tech.ac.jp/seido/wp/SDES-2015-12.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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 570-585, May.
    2. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    3. Dawes, Robyn M & Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "Anomalies: Cooperation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 187-197, Summer.
    4. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 3.
    5. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 7.
    6. Fehr, Ernst & Powell, Michael & Wilkening, Tom, 2021. "Behavioral Constraints on the Design of Subgame-Perfect Implementation Mechanisms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 111(4), pages 1055-1091.
    7. Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 1999. "Unforeseen Contingencies and Incomplete Contracts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(1), pages 83-114.
    8. Yan Chen, 2005. "Dynamic Stability of Nash-Efficient Public Goods Mechanisms: Reconciling Theory and Experiments," Springer Books, in: Amnon Rapoport & Rami Zwick (ed.), Experimental Business Research, chapter 0, pages 185-200, Springer.
    9. Martin Shubik, 2011. "The Present and Future of Game Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1808, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 4.
    11. Jeffrey S. Banks & Charles R. Plott & David P. Porter, 1988. "An Experimental Analysis of Unanimity in Public Goods Provision Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 55(2), pages 301-322.
    12. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 2.
    13. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 8.
    14. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 5.
    15. Masuda, Takehito & Okano, Yoshitaka & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2014. "The minimum approval mechanism implements the efficient public good allocation theoretically and experimentally," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 73-85.
    16. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    17. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    18. Fehr, Ernst & Powell, Michael & Wilkening, Tom, 2014. "Handing Out Guns at a Knife Fight: Behavioral Limitations of Subgame-Perfect Implementation," IZA Discussion Papers 8404, IZA Network @ LISER.
    19. Kalai, Ehud, 1981. "Preplay negotiations and the prisoner's dilemma," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 375-379, August.
    20. Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), 2008. "Handbook of Experimental Economics Results," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 6.
    21. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Yao, Koffi Serge William & Lavaine, Emmanuelle & Willinger, Marc, 2024. "Effectiveness of the approval mechanism in a three-player common pool resource dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Koffi Serge William Yao & Emmanuelle Lavaine & Marc Willinger, 2022. "Does the approval mechanism induce the efficient extraction in common pool resource games?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(1), pages 111-139, January.
    3. Koffi Serge William Yao & Emmanuelle Lavaine & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Effectiveness of the approval mechanism for CPR dilemmas: unanimity versus majority rule," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03234786, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.

    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. Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Takehito Masuda & Takafumi Yamakawa, "undated". "Approval Mechanism to Solve Prisoner’s Dilemma: Comparison with Varian’s Compensation Mechanism," Working Papers SDES-2016-15, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Takehito Masuda & Takafumi Yamakawa, 2018. "Approval mechanism to solve prisoner’s dilemma: comparison with Varian’s compensation mechanism," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 65-77, June.
    3. Hugh-Jones, David & Reinstein, David, 2014. "Exclude the Bad Actors or Learn About The Group," Economics Discussion Papers 10010, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    4. repec:esx:essedp:750 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Pierre-Olivier Pineau, 2022. "Choosing to Pay More for Electricity: an experiment on the level of residential consumer cooperation," CIRANO Working Papers 2022s-18, CIRANO.
    6. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Elena Manzoni, 2020. "Zero-Intelligence vs. Human Agents: An Experimental Analysis of the Efficiency of Double Auctions and Over-the-Counter Markets of Varying Sizes," Working Papers 05/2020, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    7. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2017. "The role of frames, numbers and risk in the frequency of cooperation," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 64(3), pages 245-267, September.
    8. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Bargaining in the Absence of Property Rights: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 477-495.
    9. Heczko, Alexander & Kittsteiner, Thomas & Ott, Marion, 2023. "The benefits of auctioneer competition: Merging auctions and adding auctioneers," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-038, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Pfajfar, Damjan & Žakelj, Blaž, 2018. "Inflation Expectations And Monetary Policy Design: Evidence From The Laboratory," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(4), pages 1035-1075, June.
    11. Andrea Albertazzi & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2021. "Benchmarking information aggregation in experimental markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1500-1516, October.
    12. Jiří Špalek & Zuzana Berná, 2011. "Threshold Effectiveness in Contributing to the Public Goods: Experiments Involving Czech Students," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2011(3), pages 250-267.
    13. Pfajfar, Damjan & Žakelj, Blaž, 2014. "Experimental evidence on inflation expectation formation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 147-168.
    14. Ronald M. Harstad, 2014. "Efficiency Measurement via Revealed Thresholds, Without Knowing Valuations," Working Papers 1405, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 01 Mar 2016.
    15. Pearson, Matthew & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    16. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Centorrino, Samuele & Moscati, Ivan, 2016. "Over-the-counter markets vs. double auctions: A comparative experimental study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 22-35.
    17. Ambrus, Attila & Pathak, Parag A., 2011. "Cooperation over finite horizons: A theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 500-512, August.
    18. Alice Guerra & Mogens K. Justesen, 2022. "Vote buying and redistribution," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 315-344, December.
    19. Jeroen Nieboer, 2013. "Risk taking in diverse groups: Gender matters," Discussion Papers 2013-06, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    20. Guler, Bulent & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr & Puzzello, Daniela & Tucker, Steven, 2025. "Trading institutions in experimental asset markets: Theory and Evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    21. Cassandra R. Chambers & Wayne E. Baker, 2020. "Robust Systems of Cooperation in the Presence of Rankings: How Displaying Prosocial Contributions Can Offset the Disruptive Effects of Performance Rankings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 287-307, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
    • P43 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Finance; Public Finance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:kch:wpaper:sdes-2015-12. 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: Moinul Islam (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/smkocjp.html .

    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.