The rock–paper–scissors game

Zhou, Haijun

doi:10.1080/00107514.2015.1026556

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, in contrast to other RPS investigations where individuals played a number of opponents 4 10 , here each participant played only one computerized opponent who acted according to the Nash equilibrium. It has been suggested that in a two-player RPS game, conditional probabilities should only show minor deviation from 33% 26 . Furthermore, the use of a computerized opponent who failed to take advantage of any player’s vulnerability may have also contributed to a fairly conservative test of irrational decision making.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dyson

Wilbiks

Sandhu

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dyson

Wilbiks

Sandhu

et al. 2016

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this section we focus on another classic game: rock-paperscissors (RPS). This game has been widely studied and used for simulating, e.g., different colonies of bacteria that coexist and interact [11], for studying decision-making in non-cooperative strategic interactions [46] or for representing a food chain in ecosystems [38]. Further studies can be found in [22], [26], [42].…”

Section: Rock-paper-scissorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A symbiosis between cellular automata and genetic algorithms

Cerruti

Dutto

Murru

2020

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cellular automata are systems which use a rule to describe the evolution of a population in a discrete lattice, while genetic algorithms are procedures designed to find solutions to optimization problems inspired by the process of natural selection. In this paper, we introduce an original implementation of a cellular automaton whose rules use a fitness function to select for each cell the best mate to reproduce and a crossover operator to determine the resulting offspring. This new system, with a proper definition, can be both a cellular automaton and a genetic algorithm. We show that in our system the Conway's Game of Life can be easily implemented and, consequently, it is capable of universal computing. Moreover two generalizations of the Game of Life are created and also implemented with it. Finally, we use our system for studying and implementing the prisoner's dilemma and rock-paper-scissors games, showing very interesting behaviors and configurations (e.g., gliders) inside these games.

show abstract

“…The empirical attractiveness of the game is derived from the relationships between the items [16], in that there is no one selection that is guaranteed to perform better than another. Due to the unique Nash equilibrium of the game [17], the only strategy that can guarantee the lack of exploitation is the mixed strategy or minimax solution, whereby all three responses are randomly played 33% of the time and without regard for the previous trial [18][19][20][21]. Approximations of the mixed strategy have been reported in pigeons [4], monkeys [22], and professional sports players [23,24].…”

Section: Competitive Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioural Isomorphism, Cognitive Economy and Recursive Thought in Non-Transitive Game Strategy

Dyson

2019

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Game spaces in which an organism must repeatedly compete with an opponent for mutually exclusive outcomes are critical methodologies for understanding decision-making under pressure. In the non-transitive game rock, paper, scissors (RPS), the only technique that guarantees the lack of exploitation is to perform randomly in accordance with mixed-strategy. However, such behavior is thought to be outside bounded rationality and so decision-making can become deterministic, predictable, and ultimately exploitable. This review identifies similarities across economics, neuroscience, nonlinear dynamics, human, and animal cognition literatures, and provides a taxonomy of RPS strategy. RPS strategies are discussed in terms of (a) whether the relevant computations require sensitivity to item frequency, the cyclic relationships between responses, or the outcome of the previous trial, and (b) whether the strategy is framed around the self or other. The negative implication of this taxonomy is that despite the differences in cognitive economy and recursive thought, many of the identified strategies are behaviorally isomorphic. This makes it difficult to infer strategy from behavior. The positive implication is that this isomorphism can be used as a novel design feature in furthering our understanding of the attribution, agency, and acquisition of strategy in RPS and other game spaces.

show abstract

The rock–paper–scissors game

Cited by 19 publications

References 51 publications

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

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

A symbiosis between cellular automata and genetic algorithms

Behavioural Isomorphism, Cognitive Economy and Recursive Thought in Non-Transitive Game Strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About