All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Bias toward Loss Aversion in the Choice to Enter Risky Cooperative Games
Unformatted Document Text:  9 Findings Table 1 shows that subjects were more willing to accept the risky PD game, and to reject the certain “no play” payoff, in the domain of losses than in the domain of gains. Although payoffs from the game and from the "no play" option were equivalent across the two conditions, subjects chose the PD game in preference to the certain payoff in 80% of the losses encounters but in only 57% of the gains encounters. (Table 1 about here) Consistent with the dominance of defection in the PD, the incidence of cooperating in joined games was low. The incidence of cooperation, however, was essentially the same across the two frames (36% in gains, 35% in losses), consistent with the possibility that intending co-operators and intending defectors responded to the frame manipulation in the same way. Also consistent with that possibility, Table 2 shows that there is little difference between the number of “play and cooperate” choices subjects made in the two frames. (Table 2 about here) Finally, and allowing for the 10-point starting endowment in the losses condition, average payoffs for all subjects who joined PD games were 4.57 and 4.52 in the gains and losses conditions, respectively. The marked bias toward entering PD games in the domain of losses was, therefore, not justified by any greater returns subjects reaped from acting on that bias. Discussion

Authors: Johnson, Tim., Myagkov, Mikhail. and Orbell, John.
first   previous   Page 9 of 16   next   last



background image
9
Findings
Table 1 shows that subjects were more willing to accept the risky PD game, and to
reject the certain “no play” payoff, in the domain of losses than in the domain of gains.
Although payoffs from the game and from the "no play" option were equivalent across
the two conditions, subjects chose the PD game in preference to the certain payoff in
80% of the losses encounters but in only 57% of the gains encounters.
(Table 1 about here)
Consistent with the dominance of defection in the PD, the incidence of
cooperating in joined games was low. The incidence of cooperation, however, was
essentially the same across the two frames (36% in gains, 35% in losses), consistent
with the possibility that intending co-operators and intending defectors responded to the
frame manipulation in the same way. Also consistent with that possibility, Table 2
shows that there is little difference between the number of “play and cooperate” choices
subjects made in the two frames.
(Table 2 about here)
Finally, and allowing for the 10-point starting endowment in the losses condition,
average payoffs for all subjects who joined PD games were 4.57 and 4.52 in the gains
and losses conditions, respectively. The marked bias toward entering PD games in the
domain of losses was, therefore, not justified by any greater returns subjects reaped
from acting on that bias.
Discussion


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 16   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.