Psychological Models

[Iun]

Eh up, all.

 

Just doing a little informal research on Game Theory and psychology to see if there are any avenues worth pursuing academically.

 

First, two questions:

 

1: I have ?10 and there are two choices for its disposal (a) I give your friend ?9 and you ?1 or (b) I give it to neither of you. Which option do you prefer?

 

2: I am the warder of a prison and you are convicted of a crime, there is another criminal convicted of a similar crime in the prison. I call you into my office and say "If you provide evidence against this criminal, you can go free. However, if you fail to provide evidence, you will remain in prison for your sentence. I will offer the other man the same choice. But if he provides evidence against you first, he will go free and you will serve the full term of your sentence. On the other hand, if neither of you provide evidence, you will both serve half your term.

 

You must now go back to your cell for 24 hours and then make a decision."

 

What do you decide?

 

Two fairly standard questions there, and I apologise if it's old hat to you, but I hope you can answer them honestly.

[Cube]

1. Obviously a, as we both benefit.

 

2. The options are a chance between a full sentence or going free, or a full sentence or a half sentence. The option to provide evidence against the other problem has a much better reward for the same risk. So that would be my choice.

[Jav_NE]

1: A - based on an agreement with the friend to share it.

 

2: I would probably try and talk the other cellmate into keeping schtum so we both get half the sentence, then i would toy with the idea of screwing him, but i'm not sure if i would. Depends how much i trusted them. If they wen't first and said nothing, then i would do the same. If i went first, i may talk, so long as i knew the guy couldn't ever find me when he gets out!

[Iun]

1: A - based on an agreement with the friend to share it.

 

2: I would probably try and talk the other cellmate into keeping schtum so we both get half the sentence, then i would toy with the idea of screwing him, but i'm not sure if i would. Depends how much i trusted them. If they wen't first and said nothing, then i would do the same. If i went first, i may talk, so long as i knew the guy couldn't ever find me when he gets out!

 

No additional variables please!

[Charlie]

1. Obviously a, as we both benefit.

 

2. The options are a chance between a full sentence or going free, or a full sentence or a half sentence. The option to provide evidence against the other problem has a much better reward for the same risk. So that would be my choice.

 

Those are the Golden Balls options as well once it gets to the final 2 people.

 

Are you going to go for 'all or nothing' or 'half or nothing'? I'd try and convince the other guy to go Half, knowing that I would go all.

[S.C.G]

1. 'a' as it's beneficial, it's still an extra ?1.

 

2. 'provide evidence' as there's no knowing that the other guy wouldn't do the same thing.

[Ganepark32]

1. Option B

 

2. I'd opt to keep quiet as it's the most likely outcome to be chosen by both people, if we're going by Game Theory

 

Looked at this kind of stuff in my Decision Making module at Uni so understand (mostly) what this is all about, not just Game Theory but Expected Utility Theory to some degree.

 

Realistically, if you assume that both people are of a similar monetary status then you'd choose option B due to only getting ?1 of the ?10 because it yields little utility/value over your current state whereas, if you were to get the ?9 and a friend got the ?1, you're more likely to choose option A.

 

[Iun]

1. Option B

 

2. I'd opt to keep quiet as it's the most likely outcome to be chosen by both people, if we're going by Game Theory

 

Looked at this kind of stuff in my Decision Making module at Uni so understand (mostly) what this is all about, not just Game Theory but Expected Utility Theory to some degree.

 

Realistically, if you assume that both people are of a similar monetary status then you'd choose option B due to only getting ?1 of the ?10 because it yields little utility/value over your current state whereas, if you were to get the ?9 and a friend got the ?1, you're more likely to choose option A.

 

I fundamentally disagree. The utility of ?1 versus ?0 is obvious. The real question is, will you dick someone else over because you don't like the terms? Even a rational actor model says "Take the ?1!". Interestingly, most Chinese people I asked said they would rather nobody had anything than accept the humiliation of having less.

 

[Ganepark32]

I fundamentally disagree. The utility of ?1 versus ?0 is obvious. The real question is, will you dick someone else over because you don't like the terms? Even a rational actor model says "Take the ?1!". Interestingly, most Chinese people I asked said they would rather nobody had anything than accept the humiliation of having less.

 

I'd probably disagree as well given the amount of money on offer is relatively small but it all comes down to how the question is phrased/framed (Framing Effect) and to some people the question sounds like a loss to them whereas some will see it as a gain. It's more likely that people should see it as a loss this way due to the friend getting ?9 being the first thing stated whereas if it said something like "You'll get 10% of the money and the rest goes to the friend" you'd pick yes. And of course, this will vary across different cultures.

 

I think anyway. Not a big fan of this style of 'psychology', or neuroeconomics as it's sometimes called, because it's largely nonsensical social psychology trying to understand how we make decisions without taking into account all the variables Apologies if that's put a dampener on what your trying to do here

 

[Iun]

I'd probably disagree as well given the amount of money on offer is relatively small but it all comes down to how the question is phrased/framed (Framing Effect) and to some people the question sounds like a loss to them whereas some will see it as a gain. It's more likely that people should see it as a loss this way due to the friend getting ?9 being the first thing stated whereas if it said something like "You'll get 10% of the money and the rest goes to the friend" you'd pick yes. And of course, this will vary across different cultures.

 

I think anyway. Not a big fan of this style of 'psychology', or neuroeconomics as it's sometimes called, because it's largely nonsensical social psychology trying to understand how we make decisions without taking into account all the variables Apologies if that's put a dampener on what your trying to do here

 

no dampener at all, its a pleasure to discourse! You want to take into account all the variables, how long have you got? As you say, framing is useful, but it's more about proving or disproving rationality in decision makers. I'm more concerned about the effects of decisions made by "actors" in a system of peers. Sure, we could try and account for all the variables, but really we'd be wasting our time. It's better to use heuristics and relations theory to come up with a predictive pattern. So far, the responses have shown me that 100% of Chinese will reject all money, while about 40% of Westerners would do the same. My sample so far is oly about ten people on either side so far though.

 

[Serebii]

Option 3. I shoot you and take the money :p

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

1: A, obviously, because I'm not a petty bastard who can't deal with things going better for my friends. Besides, I can get a pack of cookies for ?1!

 

2: The Prisoner's Dilemma. I've read about that. Though it's somewhat different than the usual version, and the differences here make it a lot simpler. The usual version requires more tactical thinking since the possible outcomes are different and the other prisoner is your partner, introducing a loyalty/trust element. This one is a lot more straight forward: There is no reason for any of us to keep quiet since the one who provides evidence first gets free. Why go for the half prize when going for the full prize has the same odds and you stand to lose the same? Both prisoners know this, but don't know each other, and thus there's no reason for them to consider the alternative. Unless you choose to be altruistic and let the other go free, but he is a criminal, so it's probably not that altruistic in the grander scheme of things.

[Iun]

Option 3. I shoot you and take the money :p

 

There is no option 3, and just for that, you're not allowed any sex for...like forever or something.

 

1: A, obviously, because I'm not a petty bastard who can't deal with things going better for my friends. Besides, I can get a pack of cookies for ?1!

 

2: The Prisoner's Dilemma. I've read about that. Though it's somewhat different than the usual version, and the differences here make it a lot simpler. The usual version requires more tactical thinking since the possible outcomes are different and the other prisoner is your partner, introducing a loyalty/trust element. This one is a lot more straight forward: There is no reason for any of us to keep quiet since the one who provides evidence first gets free. Why go for the half prize when going for the full prize has the same odds and you stand to lose the same? Both prisoners know this, but don't know each other, and thus there's no reason for them to consider the alternative. Unless you choose to be altruistic and let the other go free, but he is a criminal, so it's probably not that altruistic in the grander scheme of things.

 

You make a very Realist-oriented point. If I can't trust the other guy, it's in my interest to defect.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think anyway. Not a big fan of this style of 'psychology', or neuroeconomics as it's sometimes called, because it's largely nonsensical social psychology trying to understand how we make decisions without taking into account all the variables

Apologies if that's put a dampener on what your trying to do here

 

I agree entirely with this. It was actually my first thought when reading this, but then I decided to play along instead of being a spoilsport.

 

[Diageo]

A and give evidence.

[Iun]

Well, whether people are fans of this sort of thing or not, I appreciate the participation!

[MoogleViper]

1. A

2. Give evidence

 

Maybe it would be harder if it was my friend in 2 and a criminal in A.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Well, whether people are fans of this sort of thing or not, I appreciate the participation!

 

It's definitely fun and interesting!

[EddieColeslaw]

1: (a), I hope it helps my friend! And ?1 is better than ?0.

2: Provide evidence, because justice should always be served. If the crime was committed, criminals should expect to go to prison. Not having to go would be a "bonus", not an expected thing.

 

Unrelated, but may be of interest to people who enjoyed the second question:

 

http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

http://listverse.com/2011/04/18/10-more-moral-dilemmas/

http://listverse.com/2010/12/26/another-10-moral-dilemmas/

[heroicjanitor]

1. a) obviously

2. You wouldn't be in prison already if they didn't have evidence on you so what can the other guy say? But seriously I would give evidence in that situation for reasons Cube laid out.

[Coolness Bears]

1. b) I wouldn't accept ?10 out of the blue.

2. I'd do nothing, I've committed a crime I deserve to be there.

[gaggle64]

1. a) Better to get a pound even if I'm jealous of someone getting 9.

2. I wouldn't provide the evidence, I would view it as an attempt to gain control by the warden and would be naturally inclined to resist.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Those are the Golden Balls options as well once it gets to the final 2 people.

I was going to say the same thing.

 

For me:

A] I suppose I could get a quid.

 

B] Fuck the other guy. I want freedom.

[EddieColeslaw]

I asked my friend (who is not Chinese ):

 

1: OBVIOUSLY a)!

2: Assuming the chance of being able to provide evidence first is 50:50, there is a better expected return from providing evidence as soon as possible.

[Rummy]

In relation to the first, in a book I was reading but I can't remember what/where it was now, there was the real life example of a company and wages or something. They found that one group of people were willing to have a lesser overall wage, if it meant having a higher wage than the other group below them. So like...A is warehouse workers in a shop, B is salespeople

 

B would rather have wage of ?5 and the warehouse people a wage of ?4.80 than

B having wage of ?5.20 and warehouse people having wage of ?5.50

 

Or something like that. I've completely made up context here, but I wish I had/could find that book to use the actual example. Also on the game theory thing I stumbled across a blog recently that does some game theory stuff called Mind Your Decisions. I don't/haven't really read it much, but it could have stuff of interest for people.