Negative outcomes evoke cyclic irrational decisions in Rock, Paper, Scissors

Abstract

Rock, Paper, Scissors (RPS) represents a unique gaming space in which the predictions of human rational decision-making can be compared with actual performance. Playing a computerized opponent adopting a mixed-strategy equilibrium, participants revealed a non-significant tendency to over-select Rock. Further violations of rational decision-making were observed using an inter-trial analysis where participants were more likely to switch their item selection at trial n + 1 following a loss or draw at trial n, revealing the strategic vulnerability of individuals following the experience of negative rather than positive outcome. Unique switch strategies related to each of these trial n outcomes were also identified: after losing participants were more likely to ‘downgrade’ their item (e.g., Rock followed by Scissors) but after drawing participants were more likely to ‘upgrade’ their item (e.g., Rock followed by Paper). Further repetition analysis revealed that participants were more likely to continue their specific cyclic item change strategy into trial n + 2. The data reveal the strategic vulnerability of individuals following the experience of negative rather than positive outcome, the tensions between behavioural and cognitive influences on decision making, and underline the dangers of increased behavioural predictability in other recursive, non-cooperative environments such as economics and politics.

Behavioural and neural limits in competitive decision making: The roles of outcome, opponency and observation

“…Therefore, in the context of strategic opponency, the removal of response choice had an inhibitory effect on performance. Secondly and in alignment with previous results, participants were more likely to engage in higher-quality decision making following a positive outcome (win) relative to a negative outcome (lose or draw; Dyson et al, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016;Laakasuo et al, 2015;Mitzenmacher & Upfal, 2005). This was despite the fact that the strategy itself was a form of shift behaviour.…”

“…First, participants showed a slight item bias towards Rock (Baek et al, 2013;Dyson et al, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016;Wang, Xu & Zhou, 2014). Second, participants showed an approximation of MES following positive outcomes (win; Dyson et al, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016). Third, and in contrast, participants were more predictable in their behaviour following negative (lose, draw) outcomes, specifically with respect to the expression of shift behaviour Forder & Dyson, 2016).…”

“…At the behavioural level, RPS play in Experiment 1 replicated four key findings from the previous literature. First, participants showed a slight item bias towards Rock (Baek et al, 2013;Dyson et al, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016;Wang, Xu & Zhou, 2014). Second, participants showed an approximation of MES following positive outcomes (win; Dyson et al, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016).…”

“…At each trial during the play condition, the participant pressed one of three buttons corresponding to Rock, Paper or Scissors, prompted by the presentation of a fixation cross. Due to the use of three responses in RPS, only one form of stay behaviour but two forms of shift behaviour were available: upgrade [select item that would have beaten your previous play] and downgrade [select item that would have been beaten by your previous play] (see Dyson et al, 2016, for more details).…”

“…One reliable precursor of when humans deviate from MES behavior-and are thus more likely to offer themselves up for exploitation-is following negative rather than positive outcomes (e.g., Dyson, Wilbiks, Sandhu, Papanicolaou & Lintag, 2016;Forder & Dyson, 2016). This predictability echoes principles of reinforcement learning such that positive outcomes are more likely to lead to behavioural repetition (win-stay) whereas negative outcomes are more likely to lead to behavioural change (lose-shift; Lee, McGreevy & Barraclough, 2005;Thorndike, 1911;Wang, Xu & Behavioural and neural limits in competitive decision making 4 .…”