Show simple item record

How to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma

dc.contributor.authorWu, Jianzhongen_US
dc.contributor.authorAxelrod, Roberten_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-13T18:38:16Z
dc.date.available2010-04-13T18:38:16Z
dc.date.issued1995en_US
dc.identifier.citationWu, Jianzhong; Axelrod, Robert (1995). "How to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma." Journal of Conflict Resolution 1(39): 183-189. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66566>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-0027en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/66566
dc.description.abstractNoise in the form of random errors in implementing a choice is a common problem in real-world interactions. Recent research has identified three approaches to coping with noise: adding generosity to a reciprocating strategy; adding contrition to a reciprocating strategy; and using an entirely different strategy, Pavlov, based on the idea of switching choice whenever the previous payoff was low. Tournament studies, ecological simulation, and theoretical analysis demonstrate (1) a generous version of tit-for-tat is a highly effective strategy when the players it meets have not adapted to noise; (2) if the other players have adapted to noise, a contrite version of tit-for-tat is even more effective at quickly restoring mutual cooperation without the risk of exploitation; and (3) Pavlov is not robust.en_US
dc.format.extent3108 bytes
dc.format.extent562891 bytes
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherSage Periodicals Pressen_US
dc.titleHow to Cope with Noise in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemmaen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPolitical Scienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelGovernment, Politics and Lawen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherChinese Academy of Sciencesen_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66566/2/10.1177_0022002795039001008.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0022002795039001008en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAxelrod, R. 1984. The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAxelord, R., and D. Dion. 1988. The further evolution of cooperation. Science242:1385-1390.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBendor, J. 1993. Uncertainty and the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Conflict Resolution37:709-734.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBendor, J., R. M. Kramer, and S. Stout. 1991. When in doubt: Cooperation in a noisy prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution35:691-719.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBoyd, R. 1989. Mistakes allow evolutionary stability in the repeated prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Theoretical Biology136:47-56.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFudenberg, D., and E. Maskin. 1990. Evolution and cooperation in noisy repeated games. American Economic Review80:274-279.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGodfray, H.C.J. 1992. The evolution of forgiveness. Nature355:206-207.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldstein, J. 1991. Reciprocity in superpower relations: An empirical analysis. International Studies Quarterly35:195-209.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHersh, S.M. 1986. The target is destroyed: What really happened to Flight 007 and what America knew about it. New York: Random House.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKollock, P. 1993. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind: Cooperation and accounting systems. American Sociological Review58:768-786.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLindgren, K. 1991. Evolutionary phenomena in simple dynamics. In Artificial life II: Proceedings of the workshop on artificial life, edited by C. Langton, C. Taylor, J. D. Farmer, and S. Rasmussen. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMay, R. M. 1987. More evolution of cooperation. Nature327:15-17.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMolander, P. 1985. The optimal level of generosity in a selfish, uncertain environment. Journal of Conflict Resolution29:611-618.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNowak, M., and K. Sigmund. 1992. Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature355:250-253.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNowak, M. 1993. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner's dilemma game. Nature364:56-58.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSugden, R. 1986. The economics of rights, co-operation and welfare. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYoung, H. P., and D. Foster. 1991. Cooperation in the short and in the long run. Games and Economic Behavior3:145-156.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.