Three different presentation formats of the same Prisoner's Dilemma game were investigated. Fifteen pairs of male subjects were assigned to each of three experimental conditions. One group played a conventional matrix representation of the game, one group played an expected value representation of the game, and one group played a simplified probabilistic version of the game called "Take-Some." Each pair of subjects played their game for fifty trials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Crumbaugh, C.M. and G.W. Evans (1967) "Presentation format, other-person strategies, and cooperative behavior in the Prisoner's Dilemma." Psych. Reports20: 895-902.
2.
Deutsch, M. (1960) "The effect of motivational orientation upon threat and suspicion." Human Relations13: 123-139.
3.
Evans, G.W. and C.M. Crumbaugh (1966) "Payment schedule, sequence of choice, and cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma game." Psychonomic Sci.5: 87-88.
4.
Guyer, M. and B. Perkel (1972) Experimental Games: a Bibliography (1945-1971. University of Michigan Mental Health Research Institute Communication293.
5.
Hamburger, H. (1973) "N-person Prisoner's Dilemma." J. of Mathematical Sociology3, 1.
--- and M. Guyer, (1972) "Group size and cooperation in games." Presented at the West Coast Conference on Small Group Research , Portland, Oregon, April 25.
8.
Hardin, G. (1968) "The tragedy of the commons." Sci.162: 1243-1248.
9.
Pruitt, D.G. (1970) "Motivational processes in the decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma game." J. of Personality and Social Psychology14: 227-238.
10.
--- ( 1967) "Reward structure and cooperation: the decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma game." J. of Personality and Social Psychology7: 21-27.
11.
Rapoport, A. and A.M. Chammah (1965) Prisoner's Dilemma: a Study of Conflict and Cooperation . Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press .
12.
Rapoport, A. and M. Guyer (1966) "A taxonomy of 2 x 2 games." General Systems11: 203-214.
13.
Schelling, T.C.( 1971) "On the ecology of micromotives." Public Interest5.
