Paper: Prisoner's Dilemma

How do Michael & Lincoln (defect) and Sucre’s (cooperation) situation align with the classic prisoner’s dilemma?

Classic prisoner’s dilemma: the one who deflects is set free & the one who cooperates serves 10 years in prison

Lincoln (deflect) rewarded with more time outside in the yard & a cigarette

Sucre (cooperation) loses conjugal visits

Which 3 interpersonal dispositions influence decision-making in the prisoner’s dilemma & how?

1) Procosial orientation

• cooperative

• prioritize equality & collective benefit

2) Pro-self orientation

• individualistic

• maximize personal gain

• look at their own outcomes

3) Competitive orientation

• try to outperform others

• goal: having more than others

• compare own outcomes to others

Which interpersonal disposition do Michael, Lincoln & Sucre opt in their decision-making in the prisoner’s dilemma?

Michael & Lincoln: pro-self (individualistic) orientation

• prioritize personal goals

• goal is not to punish Sucre or to get higher reward

Sucre: prosocial (cooperative) orientation

• doesn’t want to break Michael’s trust because he’s his cellmate

• interested in phone, thinks that Michael would allow him to use it

What is moral framing? What’s the difference with neutral framing?

Presenting information with a positive or negative moral connotation

Neutral framing: presenting information without added moral value

Which 3 types of moral labelling / framing are there in the prisoner’s dilemma? How can these be morally labelled/framed compared to neutral framing?

1) Labelling of the game itself

2) Behavioral options

• moral framing: ‘i cooperate’ vs. ‘i cheat’ (negative moral connotation

• neutral framing: ‘A’ vs. ‘B’

3) Outcomes

• moral framing: ‘winner’ vs. ‘traitor, sucker’

• neutral framing: ‘loss of privileges’

Which impact does moral framing of behavioral options have compared to neutral framing on the punishment used during a monetary prisoner’s dilemma game against computers? Also mention which types of punishments can occur.

Moral punishment: cooperator punishes defector

Hypocritical punishment: defector punishes another defector

1) Both punishments higher in moral framing condition compared to neutral framing

2) Moral framing increased cooperation when participants fear moral punishment from partners

→ Both punishments motivated by monetary losses AND moral evaluations of partner’s defection

How do moral framing & moral punishment manifest in the practical example of Michael, Lincoln & Sucre?

Moral framing increases likelihood of moral punishment

• Sucre abandons Michael’s cell after feeling morally betrayed

Which type of moral labelling/framing is prominent in the practical example? Explain. Tip: explain why the others aren’t applicable.

Moral labelling of outcomes

• not in gaming context → no labelling of game itself

• Lincoln talks to guard & chooses to defect without being given options & Sucre is unaware of betrayal during interrogation → no moral labelling

• Michael: ‘I had to test you to see if you could keep a secret’ = admits betrayal → moral labelling of outcome

Recent finding: how does oxytocin effect cooperation within prisoner’s dilemma games? What is the effect influenced by (2 things)?

1) Familiarity between participants

2) Personality traits (social value orientation)

• pro-self or prosocial

Results:

• pro-self with oxytocin → more cooperation with familiar participants, less with anonymous participants

• prosocial with oxytocin → less cooperation with familiar participants, no difference with anonymous participants