Discussion: View Thread

Here's an anectode:

I have run a version of Prisoners' Dilemma many times. Results vary
according to the population and the rules, but my groups tend to produce
bloodbaths.

Once I ran the game with a eight paired groups of public sector managers
from Francophone Africa. Feelings ran high, and most of the group pairs
could not succeed in cooperating. One negotiator gave his word of honor as
an African that their group would not betray the other group - only to be
overcome by the two other members of his group. A loss of face resulted,
with serious repercussions in the seminar. One pair of groups, however,
cooperated through thick and thin right up until the last round. Then one
of the groups betrayed the other, winning the game. When we debriefed, they
made a formal apology to the other group. They were almost in tears, so
ashamed were they of what they had done. And they told everyone that they
had learned their lesson.

By the way, non-cooperation so predominates in the final round of Prisoners'
Dilemma that I usually run it without telling participants how many rounds
they will play. After all, it makes a tremendous difference whether you see
a negotiation as a one-shot deal or as an episode in an on-going
relationship.

Roger Putzel
Associate Professor of Business Administration
St. Michael's College
Colchester, VT
05439-0211 USA

Things would be so different if they were not as they are. -
Anna Russell

Try having that debriefing and discussion with everyone "learning their lesson"
and then offering them a second opportunity to do the very same game to see if
the apologies truly had any merit. Sometimes they do, but, alas, sometimes they
don't!

"Dr. Roger Putzel" wrote:

> Here's an anectode:
>
> I have run a version of Prisoners' Dilemma many times. Results vary
> according to the population and the rules, but my groups tend to produce
> bloodbaths.
>
> Once I ran the game with a eight paired groups of public sector managers
> from Francophone Africa. Feelings ran high, and most of the group pairs
> could not succeed in cooperating. One negotiator gave his word of honor as
> an African that their group would not betray the other group - only to be
> overcome by the two other members of his group. A loss of face resulted,
> with serious repercussions in the seminar. One pair of groups, however,
> cooperated through thick and thin right up until the last round. Then one
> of the groups betrayed the other, winning the game. When we debriefed, they
> made a formal apology to the other group. They were almost in tears, so
> ashamed were they of what they had done. And they told everyone that they
> had learned their lesson.
>
> By the way, non-cooperation so predominates in the final round of Prisoners'
> Dilemma that I usually run it without telling participants how many rounds
> they will play. After all, it makes a tremendous difference whether you see
> a negotiation as a one-shot deal or as an episode in an on-going
> relationship.
>
> Roger Putzel
> Associate Professor of Business Administration
> St. Michael's College
> Colchester, VT
> 05439-0211 USA
>
> Things would be so different if they were not as they are. -
> Anna Russell

--
Bill Ferris
Professor of Management
Western New England College
1215 Wilbraham Rd.
Springfield, MA 01119
Phone: 413-782-1629
Fax: 413-796-2068
E-mail: bferris@wnec.edu

What you describe is called the "superfluous play" problem. The problem is
that your participants knew the end of the game was coming.

Have you covered the solid theoretical work in GT? You might want to try
Rappoport, Axelrod, Ordeshook, etc. It is best to get a solid grounding
here, prior to doing the simulations. One trick you might want to use in
them is to manipulate the payoff matrices to make cooperation more likely,
and to mitigate the SP problem, do not announce when the session will end
and provide a single high payoff for ending the last play in C,C mode.

______________________

Randall W. Kindley The Performance Group
President 5215 45th Ave. S.
V: 612-721-6752 Minneapolis MN 55417-2334
F: 847-589-5231 www.topleaders.com
kindley@dialupnet.com

"Building High Performance Organizations by
Developing People and Processes"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion
> [mailto:MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU]On Behalf Of Dr. Roger Putzel
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:45 AM
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Prisoners' dilemma
>
>
> Here's an anectode:
>
> I have run a version of Prisoners' Dilemma many times. Results vary
> according to the population and the rules, but my groups tend to produce
> bloodbaths.
>
> Once I ran the game with a eight paired groups of public sector managers
> from Francophone Africa. Feelings ran high, and most of the group pairs
> could not succeed in cooperating. One negotiator gave his word
> of honor as
> an African that their group would not betray the other group - only to be
> overcome by the two other members of his group. A loss of face resulted,
> with serious repercussions in the seminar. One pair of groups, however,
> cooperated through thick and thin right up until the last round. Then one
> of the groups betrayed the other, winning the game. When we
> debriefed, they
> made a formal apology to the other group. They were almost in tears, so
> ashamed were they of what they had done. And they told everyone that they
> had learned their lesson.
>
> By the way, non-cooperation so predominates in the final round of
> Prisoners'
> Dilemma that I usually run it without telling participants how many rounds
> they will play. After all, it makes a tremendous difference
> whether you see
> a negotiation as a one-shot deal or as an episode in an on-going
> relationship.
>
> Roger Putzel
> Associate Professor of Business Administration
> St. Michael's College
> Colchester, VT
> 05439-0211 USA
>
> Things would be so different if they were not as they are. -
> Anna Russell