Skip to main content
Log in

Leaving the Prison: Permitting Partner Choice and Refusal in Prisoner's Dilemma Games

  • Published:
Computational Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We propose a simple rule of thumb on how to choose one's game partner thatallows economic agents who care about the future to learn to cooperate inthe iterated prisoner's dilemma. This rule of thumb uses partner selectionstrategically to reward cooperative behavior and teach defectors a lesson.This reward and punishment scheme leads to higher payoffs of non-exploitivestrategies and slowly converts defectors, who are attracted by the higherpayoffs, into non-exploitive types. Simulations show that the convergence tostable cooperative behavior is rather fast.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashlock, D., Smucker, S., Stanley, A. and Tesfatsion, L. (1996). Preferential partner selection in an evolutionary study of the prisoner's dilemma. BioSystems, 37, 99–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, D. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshel, I., Sansone, E. and Shaked, A. (1999). The emergence of kinship behavior in structured populations of unrelated individuals. International Journal of Game Theory, 4, 447–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, D. and Shapley, L. (1962). College admission and the stability of marriage. American Mathematical Monthly, 69, 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, P. and Ray, R. (1996). Cooperation in community interaction without information flow. Review of Economic Studies, 63, 491–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauk, E. (1996). Behavior in simultaneous, finitely repeated 2 by 2 prisoner's dilemma games with and without exit: experimental evidence. Mimeo EUI.

  • Johnson, P., Levine, D. and Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Evolution and information in a prisoner's dilemma game. Mimeo, Department of Economics, Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karandikar, R., Mookherjee, D., Ray, D. and Vega-Redondo, F. (1998). Evolving aspiration and cooperation. Journal of Economic Theory, 80(2), 292–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mailath, G.J., Samuelson, L. and Shaked, A. (1994). Evolution and endogenous interactions. Working Paper, University of Bonn.

  • Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa, T., Orbell, J.M. and Runde, A.S. (1995). The advantage of being moderately cooperative. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 601–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oechssler, J. (1997). Decentralization and the coordination problem. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 32(1), 119–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J. and Dawes, R.M. (1991). A cognitive miser theory of cooperators’ advantage. The American Political Science Review, 85(2), 515–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J., Runde, A. and Morikawa, T. (1996). The robustness of cognitively simple judgements in ecologies of prisoners’ dilemma games. BioSystems, 37, 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J., Schwartz-Shea, P. and Simmons R.T. (1984). Do cooperators exit more readily than defectors. The American Political Science Review, 78, 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J.M. and Dawes, R.M. (1993). Social welfare, cooperators’ advantage and the option of not playing the game. American Sociology Review, 58, 787–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J.R. (1993). Friendship and the evolution of co-operation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 162, 195–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A.E. and Sotomayer, M. (1990). Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Schluessler, R. (1989). Exit threats and cooperation under anonymity. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 33(4), 728–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smucker, M.D., Stanley, E.A. and Ashlock, D. (1994). Analyzing social network structures in the iterated prisoner's dilemma with choice and refusal. Technical Report CS-TR-94-1259 30, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

  • Stanley, E.A., Ashlock, D. and Tesfatsion, L. (1994). Iterated prisoner's dilemma with choice and refusal of partners. In C. Langton (ed.), Artificial Life III, Volume 17 of Proceedings Volume, 131–175. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesfatsion, L. (1997). A trade network game with endogenous partner selection. In H. Amman, B. Rustem and A.B. Whinston (eds.), Computational Approaches to Economic Problems, 249–269. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, G. (1985). Adam Smith and the prisoner's dilemma. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100(c), 1073–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanberg, V.J. and Congelton, R.D. (1992). Rationality, morality and exit. The American Political Science Review, 86(2), 418–431.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hauk, E. Leaving the Prison: Permitting Partner Choice and Refusal in Prisoner's Dilemma Games. Computational Economics 18, 65–87 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013866527989

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013866527989

Navigation