Cited by 9Experimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationGame Theory and Applications

Social contracts and human–computer interaction with simulated adapting agents

Craig, Alexis B, Asher, Derrik E, Oros, Nicolas, Brewer, Alyssa A, Krichmar, Jeffrey L·2013·Adaptive Behavior

Abstract

Game theory is commonly used to study social behavior in cooperative or competitive situations. One socioeconomic game, Stag Hunt, involves the trade-off between social and individual benefit by offering the option to hunt a low-payoff hare alone or a high-payoff stag cooperatively. Stag Hunt encourages the creation of social contracts as a result of the payoff matrix, which favors cooperation. By playing Stag Hunt with set-strategy computer agents, the social component is degraded because of the inability of subjects to dynamically affect the outcomes of iterated games, as would be the case when playing against another subject. However, playing with an adapting agent has the potential to evoke unique and complex reactions in subjects because of its ability to change its own strategy based on its experience over time, both within and between games. In the present study, 40 subjects played the iterated Stag Hunt with five agents differing in strategy: exclusive hare hunting, exclusive stag hunting, random, Win-Stay-Lose-Shift, and adapting. The results indicated that the adapting agent caused subjects to spend more time and effort in each game, exhibiting a more complicated path to their destination. This suggests that adapting agents exhibit behavior similar to human opponents, evoking more natural social responses in subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1059712313491612

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive game-playing experiences trigger release of hormones such as endorphins and striatal dopamine that are responsible for feelings of pleasure and well-being.

    “Evidence from neuropsychological research further suggests the therapeutic value of game-based digital interventions in depression therapy, finding that positive game-playing experiences trigger the release of hormones such as endorphins and striatal dopamine7,8 that are responsible for feelings of pleasure and well-being.9,10”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Craig, A. B., Asher, D. E., Oros, N., Brewer, A. A., & Krichmar, J. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
Adaptive Behavior
Published
2013-07-29
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
371-387
ISSN
  • 1059-7123 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2633
OpenAlex
W2152872598
Cited by
9
References
41
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Adaptive Behavior (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • University of California, Irvine
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
Keywords
social contract, stag hunt, repeated games, human-computer interaction, cooperation, win-stay lose-shift strategy, game theory, human-agent interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review