4.7 Article

Social cycling and conditional responses in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/srep05830

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [SSEYI2014Z]
  2. State Key Laboratory for Theoretical Physics [Y3KF261CJ1]
  3. Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project of Zhejiang Province [13NDJC095YB]
  4. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB932804]
  5. Knowledge Innovation Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJCX2-EW-J02]
  6. National Science Foundation of China [11121403, 11225526]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

How humans make decisions in non-cooperative strategic interactions is a big question. For the fundamental Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) model game system, classic Nash equilibrium (NE) theory predicts that players randomize completely their action choices to avoid being exploited, while evolutionary game theory of bounded rationality in general predicts persistent cyclic motions, especially in finite populations. However as empirical studies have been relatively sparse, it is still a controversial issue as to which theoretical framework is more appropriate to describe decision-making of human subjects. Here we observe population-level persistent cyclic motions in a laboratory experiment of the discrete-time iterated RPS game under the traditional random pairwise-matching protocol. This collective behavior contradicts with the NE theory but is quantitatively explained, without any adjustable parameter, by a microscopic model of win-lose-tie conditional response. Theoretical calculations suggest that if all players adopt the same optimized conditional response strategy, their accumulated payoff will be much higher than the reference value of the NE mixed strategy. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of understanding human competition behaviors from the angle of non-equilibrium statistical physics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available