Conditional cooperation under uncertainty: The social description-experience gap

IF 1 3区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS
Orestis Kopsacheilis , Dennie van Dolder , Ozan Isler
{"title":"Conditional cooperation under uncertainty: The social description-experience gap","authors":"Orestis Kopsacheilis ,&nbsp;Dennie van Dolder ,&nbsp;Ozan Isler","doi":"10.1016/j.geb.2025.04.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Conditional cooperation is typically studied in experimental settings where the behavior of others is known to subjects. In this study, we examine conditional cooperation under uncertainty. Using a novel experimental design, we exogenously manipulate the likelihood that a subject's partner in a Prisoner's Dilemma will cooperate. Information about the partner's cooperation is either presented descriptively or learned through experiential sampling. We observe a description-experience gap: subjects are more likely to cooperate under experience than under description when their partner's probability of cooperation is low, while the opposite holds when it is 50% or higher. This result contrasts with expectations deriving from the individual choice literature, where rare events are typically underweighted in experience-based decisions. We find that the gap we observe is driven by conditional cooperators being less responsive to social information acquired experientially than to that acquired descriptively. Furthermore, we show that stronger priors held by subjects under social uncertainty compared to individual uncertainty can account for the disparity with the individual choice literature.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48291,"journal":{"name":"Games and Economic Behavior","volume":"152 ","pages":"Pages 241-256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Games and Economic Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825625000636","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conditional cooperation is typically studied in experimental settings where the behavior of others is known to subjects. In this study, we examine conditional cooperation under uncertainty. Using a novel experimental design, we exogenously manipulate the likelihood that a subject's partner in a Prisoner's Dilemma will cooperate. Information about the partner's cooperation is either presented descriptively or learned through experiential sampling. We observe a description-experience gap: subjects are more likely to cooperate under experience than under description when their partner's probability of cooperation is low, while the opposite holds when it is 50% or higher. This result contrasts with expectations deriving from the individual choice literature, where rare events are typically underweighted in experience-based decisions. We find that the gap we observe is driven by conditional cooperators being less responsive to social information acquired experientially than to that acquired descriptively. Furthermore, we show that stronger priors held by subjects under social uncertainty compared to individual uncertainty can account for the disparity with the individual choice literature.
不确定条件下的合作:社会描述-经验差距
条件合作通常是在实验环境中研究的,在实验环境中,受试者知道其他人的行为。本研究考察了不确定条件下的条件合作。利用一种新颖的实验设计,我们外生操纵了囚徒困境中被试的搭档合作的可能性。关于合作伙伴合作的信息要么是描述性地呈现,要么是通过经验抽样来学习。我们观察到一个描述-经验的差距:当他们的合作伙伴的合作概率较低时,被试在经验下比在描述下更有可能合作,而当合作伙伴的合作概率为50%或更高时,则相反。这一结果与来自个人选择文献的预期形成对比,在基于经验的决策中,罕见事件通常被低估。我们发现,我们观察到的差距是由条件合作者对经验获得的社会信息的反应不如对描述获得的社会信息的反应所驱动的。此外,我们表明,在社会不确定性下,与个人不确定性相比,受试者持有更强的先验可以解释与个人选择文献的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: Games and Economic Behavior facilitates cross-fertilization between theories and applications of game theoretic reasoning. It consistently attracts the best quality and most creative papers in interdisciplinary studies within the social, biological, and mathematical sciences. Most readers recognize it as the leading journal in game theory. Research Areas Include: • Game theory • Economics • Political science • Biology • Computer science • Mathematics • Psychology
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信