IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/487.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Choice of partners in multiple two-person prisoner's dilemma games: An experimental study

Author

Abstract

We examine the effect of unilateral and mutual partner selection in the context of prisoner's dilemmas experimentally. Subjects play simultaneously several finitely repeated two-person prisoner's dilemma games. We find that unilateral choice is the best system. It leads to low defection and fewer singles than with mutual choice. Furthermore, with the unilateral choice setup we are able to show that intending defectors are more likely to try to avoid a match than intending cooperators. We compare our results of multiple games with single game PD-experiments and find no difference in aggregate behavior. Hence the multiple game technique is robust and might therefore be an important tool in the future for testing the use of mixed strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Esther Hauk & Rosemarie Nagel, 2000. "Choice of partners in multiple two-person prisoner's dilemma games: An experimental study," Economics Working Papers 487, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/487.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2013. "Play it Again: Partner Choice, Reputation Building and Learning in Restarting, Finitely-Repeated Dilemma Games," Working Papers 2013-8, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    2. Simon Gächter & Christian Thöni, 2005. "Social Learning and Voluntary Cooperation Among Like-Minded People," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(2-3), pages 303-314, 04/05.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:5:p:363-384 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Yoella Bereby-Meyer & Alvin E. Roth, 2006. "The Speed of Learning in Noisy Games: Partial Reinforcement and the Sustainability of Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1029-1042, September.
    5. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    6. Maria Bigoni & Marco Casari & Andrzej Skrzypacz & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2015. "Time Horizon and Cooperation in Continuous Time," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 587-616, March.
    7. Esther Hauk, 2003. "Multiple Prisoner's Dilemma Games with(out) an Outside Option: an Experimental Study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 207-229, May.
    8. Giorgio Coricelli & Dietmar Fehr & Gerlinde Fellner, 2004. "Partner Selection in Public Goods Experiments," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 356-378, June.
    9. Howard Kunreuther & Gabriel Silvasi & Eric T. Bradlow & Dylan Small, 2007. "Deterministic and Stochastic Prisoner's Dilemma Games: Experiments in Interdependent Security," NBER Technical Working Papers 0341, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Daniel Friedman & Ryan Oprea, 2012. "A Continuous Dilemma," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 337-363, February.
    11. Corbae, Dean & Duffy, John, 2008. "Experiments with network formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 81-120, September.
    12. John Duffy & Dean Corbae, 2006. "Experiments with Network Formation," Working Paper 292, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Aug 2007.
    13. Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, 2010. "Exit, collective action and polycentric political systems," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 339-352, June.
    14. Friedman, Daniel & Oprea, Ryan, 2009. "A Continuous Dilemma ∗," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3475m3dq, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    15. S. K. Berninghaus & Werner Gueth & Katinka Pantz & Bodo Vogt, 2004. "Evolution of Spontaneous Social Exchange - An Experimental Study -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-17, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    16. Harmsen - van Hout, M.J.W. & Dellaert, B.G.C. & Herings, P.J.J., 2008. "Behavorial effects in individual decisions of network formation," Research Memorandum 019, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    17. Hå Holm & Peter Engseld, 2005. "Choosing Bargaining Partners—An Experimental Study on the Impact of Information About Income, Status and Gender," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 183-216, September.
    18. Howard Kunreuther & Gabriel Silvasi & Eric T. Bradlow & Dylan Small, 2009. "Bayesian analysis of deterministic and stochastic prisoner's dilemma games," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(5), pages 363-384, August.
    19. Claudia Keser & Claude Montmarquette, 2011. "Voluntary versus Enforced Team Effort," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-25, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Prisoner's dilemma; partner selection; experiments; multiple games; Leex;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:upf:upfgen:487. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.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.