The impact of the termination rule on cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma experiment
Cooperation 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.
|Date of creation:||2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +49 211 81-15494
Fax: +49 211 81-15499
Web page: http://www.dice.hhu.de/en.html
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
- Kaplan, Todd & Ruffle, Bradley, 2007.
"Which way to cooperate,"
3381, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- 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, . "Which Way to Cooperate," Working Papers WP2011/5, University of Haifa, Department of Economics, revised 04 Oct 2011.
- 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," Other publications TiSEM 884b5bf4-2acb-4ce8-b2bf-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- SUETENS, Sigrid & POTTERS, Jan, 2005. "Bertrand colludes more than Cournot," Working Papers 2005037, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998.
"A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., . "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Chapters in Economics, 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., 1999. "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Munich Reprints in Economics 20650, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Krishna, Vijay, 1985. "Finitely Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 905-22, July.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:dicedp:19. See general 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.