- The Washington Times - Thursday, March 20, 2008

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Screaming sports coaches and cutthroat tycoons have it wrong: Nice guys do finish first, a study suggests.

The Harvard University study involved 100 Boston area college students playing the same game repeatedly — a punishment-heavy version of the classic one-on-one brinksmanship game of prisoner’s dilemma. The research appears today in the journal Nature.

Common game theory has held that punishment makes two equals cooperate. But when people compete in repeated games, punishment fails to deliver, said study author Martin Nowak.

He is director of the evolutionary dynamics lab at Harvard where the study was conducted.

“On the individual level, we find that those who use punishments are the losers,” Mr. Nowak said.

The study looked at games between equals. Punishment does seem to have a place in games when one player is dominant and needs to enforce submission, Mr. Nowak said.

In Mr. Nowak’s experiment, the students played more than 8,000 games of prisoner’s dilemma, using dimes to reward and punish. The normal game of prisoner’s dilemma gives two players two options: cooperate or defect. If both cooperate, each ends up winning a dime. If both defect, each gets nothing. If one cooperates and the other defects, the cooperative player loses 20 cents and the defector wins 30 cents.

Mr. Nowak then added a “costly punishment” component. A player could choose to punish someone who didn’t cooperate. That penalized the uncooperative person 40 cents, but the other player had to pay a dime to mete out the punishment.

When Mr. Nowak compared how much money people earned or lost in the long run, there was a noticeable correlation between punishment and overall money. The players who punished their opponents the least, or not at all, made the most money.

Those who punished the most made the least money.

Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide