Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Reasons for Cooperating in Repeated Interactions: Social Value Orientations, Fuzzy Traces, Reciprocity, and Activity Bias
Authors: Pulford, Briony Dawn
Colman, A. M.
Lawrence, C. L.
Krockow, E. M.
First Published: 14-Mar-2016
Publisher: American Psychological Association
Citation: Decision, 2016
Abstract: Many human interactions involve patterns of turn-taking cooperation that can be modeled by the deeply paradoxical Centipede game. A backward induction argument suggests that cooperation is irrational in such interactions, but experiments have demonstrated that players cooperate frequently and earn better payoffs as a consequence. We formulate 6 competing theories of cooperation in Centipede games and report the results of 2 experiments, based on investigations of several closely matched games with different payoff structures and different methods of reaching decisions. The results show that turn-taking cooperation does not appear to be explained by reciprocity theory, activity bias theory, or a motive to maximize relative payoffs, but that collective rationality, in the form of a motive to maximize joint payoffs, and fuzzy-trace theory can explain cooperation in interactions of this type. Reciprocity increases cooperation across repeated games between fixed player pairs, but there is no evidence of reciprocity influencing cooperation within games.
DOI Link: 10.1037/dec0000057
ISSN: 2325-9965
eISSN: 2325-9973
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Copyright © 2016, American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. This article may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. Deposited with reference to the publisher's copyright and archiving policy.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, Dept. of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Pulford DECISION 2016.docxPost-review (final submitted)1.16 MBUnknownView/Open
Pulford DECISION 2016.pdfPost-review (final submitted)1.71 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Supplemental_Materials_Time Series_Analysis.pdfPost-review (final submitted)726.2 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.