Self-control in a Prisoner's Dilemma game: the role of trial spacing and an interfering task

Abstract

Self-control was studied in an iterated one-player Prisoner's Dilemma game in which students' choices affected the payoff matrix on the next trial. The frequency of selfcontrol responses (choice of the smaller payoff now, but with the more generous payoff matrix more likely on the next trial) and defection responses (choice of the larger payoff now, but with the less generous payoff matrix more likely on the next trial) were measured. In Experiment 1, players achieved a criterion of five consecutive self-control responses more quickly as a positive function of trial spacing, the presence between trials of a discriminative stimulus associated with the upcoming payoff matrix, and the probability that the self-control or defection response would be reciprocated by the computer. Experiment 2 replicated the effect of trial spacing except when there was an interfering task during the interval, suggesting that trial spacing permits better appreciation of the contingencies.

Sharing Game: Influence of gender, cost of response, history of reinforcement, and amount of money in the resource distribution of undergraduate students.

“…But this only becomes possible if the optimal choice (optimized) occurs in 100% of trials, as if the participant makes a competitive choice t ceases to be a fraction of T not offering support for the ultimate goal of the activity T (competitive choice has a different function depending on the activity T ). Thus, they adopt a behavior reinforced by a reinforcing stimulus with lower magnitude immediately (“victory”/“advantage” over the other, which in truth is nonexistent, immediately to the choice), rather than to adopt a behavior consequenced by a reinforcing stimulus with higher magnitude at the end of the activity (greater amount of money for himself and for the other participant, therefore bringing more benefit to the group that form together), which by definition is an impulsive choice (Fantino et al, 2006; Rachlin, 2002).…”

“…For behavioral analysts, altruism is best understood as a case of self-control (Fantino & Stolarz-Fantino, 2002; Rachlin, 2002). Self-control occurs when an organism is faced with a situation of choice between alternatives where one offers a reinforcement of lower magnitude, but immediately available after behavioral response, whereas the other alternative offers a reinforcement of greater magnitude, with a delay in obtaining the same (e.g., Fantino, Gaitan, Meyer, & Stolarz-Fantino, 2006). Superficially, altruism is a self-controlled behavior insofar as the immediate consequences are aversives to one of the agents of the interaction (the one that emits the altruistic behavior), whereas the delayed consequences are appetitive for this same agent.…”

The relationship between self-control and altruism in the light of discounting literature

“…On the other hand, however, contrary to Rachlin's expectations, it was established that in a game where rewards were paid off on a "tit for tat" basis (i.e. choice of a greater reward out of the two possible caused a less attractive pair of rewards available in the next round, but the tested person was aware that he/she is playing against him/herself), the extending of the breaks between the rounds (from 1 to 20 seconds) enhances self-control (Fantino, Gaitan, Meyer and Stolarz-Fantino, 2006). Such a result may indicate that contrary to formal similarities in the structure of selfcontrol problem and repeated prisoner's dilemma, the psychological mechanism for performing choices is entirely different.…”