Skip to main content

Prisoners dilemma or stag hunt



Over Christmas I had chance to read The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure by Brian Skyrms. A nice read, very interesting and thought provoking. There’s a couple of things in the book that prompt further discussion. The one I want to focus on in this post is the distinction between the stag hunt game and the prisoners dilemma game.
   To be sure what we are talking about, here is a specific version of both type of game. Adam and Eve independently need to decide whether to cooperate or defect. The payoff matrix details their payoff for any combination of choices, where the first number is the payoff of Adam and the second number the payoff of Eve. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma, if Adam cooperates and Eve defects then Adam gets 65 and Eve gets 165.

Prisoners Dilemma

Eve

Cooperate
Defect
Adam
Cooperate
140, 140
65, 165

Defect
165, 65
90, 90

Stag Hunt

Eve


Cooperate
Defect
Adam
Cooperate
140, 140
10, 70

Defect
70, 10
70, 70

The key thing about the prisoners dilemma is that cooperating is a dominated strategy. It doesn’t matter what Eve does, it is in Adam’s interest to defect. Similarly, it doesn’t matter what Adam does, it is in Eve’s interest to defect. So, we have a clear game theoretic prediction that both Adam and Eve should defect. Simple enough. This result, however, is a bit depressing given that both Adam and Eve would get much higher payoffs if they were to cooperate. It’s this trade-off between individual rationality and collective rationality that has resulted in the prisoners dilemma, despite its seeming simplicity, being easily the most analyzed game in game theory. The key questions asked are: (i) whether people cooperate in the prisoners dilemma, (ii) if they do (many do) then why, and (iii) if they do not (many do not) then how can we get them to cooperate.
   The main thing I liked about Skyrms’ book is his suggestion that we should focus a little less on the prisoners dilemma and a little more on the stag hunt game. There are, at least, two reasons to focus more on the stag hunt game. The reason emphasized by Skyrms is that this game is often a better description of the applied context we’re interested in than the prisoners dilemma. A more subtle reason, not explicitly mentioned by Skyrms but a theme throughout the book nonetheless, is that an understanding of the stag hunt game can possibly tell us more about the prisoners dilemma than an analysis of the prisoners dilemma can do. So, what’s different about the stag hunt game?
   In this game cooperate is not a dominated strategy. If Eve cooperates then it is in Adam’s interest to also cooperate. Which suggests that it should be a lot easier to get cooperation? That, however, is where things get interesting. If you ask people to play the stag hunt game then the outcome is remarkably similar to what you get if you ask people to play the prisoners dilemma. This is the case in the two player versions given above, or in the more general many player versions (which correspond to a linear public good game and minimum effort game) where defection quickly becomes the norm. This empirical finding potentially tells us a lot. The standard story is that people defect in the prisoners dilemma because that is the rational thing to do. That story, however, sounds a little suspect if people defect to a similar extent in the stag hunt game. In the stag hunt game defection cannot be explained as the ‘rational thing to do’ and is almost certainly a consequence of people avoiding a risky option. Something similar may be going on in the prisoners dilemma. If so, it would be a mistake to put a lack of cooperation in the prisoners dilemma down to defection being the rational thing to do.
   I’m not saying that different things may not be happening in the prisoners dilemma and the stag hunt game. Clearly, the problems of obtaining cooperation in the prisoners dilemma appear greater than in the stag hunt game. My point is more of a ‘let’s walk before we can run’ nature. It seems ambitious to try and get people to cooperate in the prisoners dilemma when we don’t know how to get them to cooperate in the stag hunt game (and we don’t). My hope would be that ways of obtaining cooperation in the stag hunt game would work pretty well for the prisoners dilemma as well. And to get cooperation in the stag hunt game the emphasis must surely be on making people more confident that the person they are playing with will cooperate. This line of reasoning is quite different to that found in most of the research on the prisoners dilemma. But, it still leaves open the question of how to get cooperation in the stag hunt game. Skyrms had a lot to say on that question, which gives me a nice topic for a future post.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Revealed preference, WARP, SARP and GARP

The basic idea behind revealed preference is incredibly simple: we try to infer something useful about a person's preferences by observing the choices they make. The topic, however, confuses many a student and academic alike, particularly when we get on to WARP, SARP and GARP. So, let us see if we can make some sense of it all.           In trying to explain revealed preference I want to draw on a  study  by James Andreoni and John Miller published in Econometrica . They look at people's willingness to share money with another person. Specifically subjects were given questions like:  Q1. Divide 60 tokens: Hold _____ at $1 each and Pass _____ at $1 each.  In this case there were 60 tokens to split and each token was worth $1. So, for example, if they held 40 tokens and passed 20 then they would get $40 and the other person $20. Consider another question: Q2. D...

Measuring risk aversion the Holt and Laury way

Attitudes to risk are a key ingredient in most economic decision making. It is vital, therefore, that we have some understanding of the distribution of risk preferences in the population. And ideally we need a simple way of eliciting risk preferences that can be used in the lab or field. Charles Holt and Susan Laury set out one way of doing in this in their 2002 paper ' Risk aversion and incentive effects '. While plenty of other ways of measuring risk aversion have been devised over the years I think it is safe to say that the Holt and Laury approach is the most commonly used (as the near 4000 citations to their paper testifies).           The basic approach taken by Holt and Laury is to offer an individual 10 choices like those in the table below. For each of the 10 choices the individual has to go for option A or option B. Most people go for option A in choice 1. And everyone should go for option B in choice 10. At some point, therefore, we expect the...

Nash bargaining solution

Following the tragic death of John Nash in May I thought it would be good to explain some of his main contributions to game theory. Where better to start than the Nash bargaining solution. This is surely one of the most beautiful results in game theory and was completely unprecedented. All the more remarkable that Nash came up with the idea at the start of his graduate studies!          The Nash solution is a 'solution' to a two-person bargaining problem . To illustrate, suppose we have Adam and Beth bargaining over how to split some surplus. If they fail to reach agreement they get payoffs €a and €b respectively. The pair (a, b) is called the disagreement point . If they agree then they can achieve any pair of payoffs within some set F of feasible payoff points . I'll give some examples later. For the problem to be interesting we need there to be some point (A, B) in F such that A > a and B > b. In...