Next Article in Journal
Competing Conventions with Costly Information Acquisition
Next Article in Special Issue
Champ versus Chump: Viewing an Opponent’s Face Engages Attention but Not Reward Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Brexit and Power in the Council of the European Union
Article

Rock-Paper-Scissors Play: Beyond the Win-Stay/Lose-Change Strategy

1
School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
2
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA
3
EM Lyon Business School, GATE UMR 5824, F-69130 Ecully, France
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Ben Dyson
Received: 30 April 2021 / Revised: 24 May 2021 / Accepted: 28 May 2021 / Published: 22 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Psychological Perspectives on Simple Games)
This research studied the strategies that players use in sequential adversarial games. We took the Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) game as an example and ran players in two experiments. The first experiment involved two humans, who played the RPS together for 100 times. Importantly, our payoff design in the RPS allowed us to differentiate between participants who used a random strategy from those who used a Nash strategy. We found that participants did not play in agreement with the Nash strategy, but rather, their behavior was closer to random. Moreover, the analyses of the participants’ sequential actions indicated heterogeneous cycle-based behaviors: some participants’ actions were independent of their past outcomes, some followed a well-known win-stay/lose-change strategy, and others exhibited the win-change/lose-stay behavior. To understand the sequential patterns of outcome-dependent actions, we designed probabilistic computer algorithms involving specific change actions (i.e., to downgrade or upgrade according to the immediate past outcome): the Win-Downgrade/Lose-Stay (WDLS) or Win-Stay/Lose-Upgrade (WSLU) strategies. Experiment 2 used these strategies against a human player. Our findings show that participants followed a win-stay strategy against the WDLS algorithm and a lose-change strategy against the WSLU algorithm, while they had difficulty in using an upgrade/downgrade direction, suggesting humans’ limited ability to detect and counter the actions of the algorithm. Taken together, our two experiments showed a large diversity of sequential strategies, where the win-stay/lose-change strategy did not describe the majority of human players’ dynamic behaviors in this adversarial situation. View Full-Text
Keywords: rock-paper-scissors; win-stay/lose-change; theory of mind rock-paper-scissors; win-stay/lose-change; theory of mind
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, H.; Moisan, F.; Gonzalez, C. Rock-Paper-Scissors Play: Beyond the Win-Stay/Lose-Change Strategy. Games 2021, 12, 52. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g12030052

AMA Style

Zhang H, Moisan F, Gonzalez C. Rock-Paper-Scissors Play: Beyond the Win-Stay/Lose-Change Strategy. Games. 2021; 12(3):52. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g12030052

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Hanshu, Frederic Moisan, and Cleotilde Gonzalez. 2021. "Rock-Paper-Scissors Play: Beyond the Win-Stay/Lose-Change Strategy" Games 12, no. 3: 52. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/g12030052

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop