Breaking the bonds of reinforcement: Effects of trial outcome, rule consistency and rule complexity against exploitable and unexploitable opponents

In two experiments, we used the simple zero-sum game Rock, Paper and Scissors to study the common reinforcement-based rules of repeating choices after winning (win-stay) and shifting from previous choice options after losing (lose-shift). Participants played the game against both computer opponents who could not be exploited and computer opponents who could be exploited by making choices that would at times conflict with reinforcement. Against unexploitable opponents, participants achieved an approximation of random behavior, contrary to previous research commonly finding reinforcement biases. Against exploitable opponents, the participants learned to exploit the opponent regardless of whether optimal choices conflicted with reinforcement or not. The data suggest that learning a rule that allows one to exploit was largely determined by the outcome of the previous trial.

Automated summary

This study used the game of Rock, Paper and Scissors to investigate the effects of reinforcement-based rules on human behavior. The findings suggest that participants exhibit random behavior when facing opponents who cannot be exploited, but they learn to exploit opponents regardless of whether it conflicts with reinforcement when facing exploitable opponents. This indicates that the outcome of the previous trial plays a significant role in learning the rule of exploitation.