Game Theory: Cooperation and Coordination

A situation where individuals are better off cooperating, but have an incentive to act selfishly for their own immediate gain.

A strategy in repeated games that involves cooperating on the first move and then mimicking the opponent's last move in subsequent rounds.

The tendency to focus on one's own interests and benefits, rather than considering the needs of others.

The process of understanding and experiencing the perspectives and emotions of others.

The ability to think critically, analyze information, and make complex decisions.

The tendency for people in some cultures to reject large gifts, as accepting them creates an obligation to reciprocate, which might be inconvenient.

A game involving two players where one player decides whether to share their money with the other, and the other player decides how much of the received money to return. This game tests trust and cooperation.

People are more likely to trust others who have established a positive reputation, demonstrating trustworthy behavior over time.

In repeated interactions between the same individuals, cooperation is more likely to occur compared to scenarios with different players each time.

A brain region associated with learning and reward, the caudate shows activity when responding to the actions of a partner in a trust game, suggesting a link between the partner's behavior and trust.

A principle of resource distribution based on the belief that individuals should receive resources proportionally to their contributions.

A social system where individuals are rewarded based on their performance and contributions, promoting merit over other factors.

A system in which time spent with a company or age is valued and rewarded, fostering stability and seniority.

A principle of resource distribution where resources are shared equally amongst all members of a group.

A principle of resource distribution where resources are directed towards those with the greatest need.

In games like the ultimatum game, where a proposer offers a split of money and the responder can accept or reject, the responder is less likely to reject an offer when they are under cognitive load. This suggests they are more likely to settle for an unfair share when they have less time and energy to consider the situation.

Fear of punishment for acting selfishly or fear of being a sucker (cooperating when others don't) can reduce cooperation in games like the prisoner's dilemma. This fear can lead to more generous offers from proposers, even when anonymity is guaranteed.

In the dictator game, where the responder has no power to reject the offer, proposers still tend to offer more than they would if they were purely self-interested. However, this generosity decreases significantly when participants are convinced that their actions are anonymous. This suggests that even in anonymity, people are motivated by factors other than pure self-interest.

In the ultimatum game, even though the responder cannot reject the offer and the proposer can take everything, a majority of proposers still offer a fair split. This suggests that people are not always driven by self-interest but are also influenced by fairness concerns.

People have different social values orientations. Prosocial individuals prioritize maximizing joint gain and equality, while individualists prioritize maximizing their own gains. This influences how they interact in games and situations involving shared resources or decision-making.