↓ Skip to main content

Social cycling and conditional responses in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 37,211)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
Title
Social cycling and conditional responses in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game
Published in
Scientific Reports, July 2014
DOI 10.1038/srep05830
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhijian Wang, Bin Xu, Hai-Jun Zhou

Abstract

How humans make decisions in non-cooperative strategic interactions is a big question. For the fundamental Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) model game system, classic Nash equilibrium (NE) theory predicts that players randomize completely their action choices to avoid being exploited, while evolutionary game theory of bounded rationality in general predicts persistent cyclic motions, especially in finite populations. However as empirical studies have been relatively sparse, it is still a controversial issue as to which theoretical framework is more appropriate to describe decision-making of human subjects. Here we observe population-level persistent cyclic motions in a laboratory experiment of the discrete-time iterated RPS game under the traditional random pairwise-matching protocol. This collective behavior contradicts with the NE theory but is quantitatively explained, without any adjustable parameter, by a microscopic model of win-lose-tie conditional response. Theoretical calculations suggest that if all players adopt the same optimized conditional response strategy, their accumulated payoff will be much higher than the reference value of the NE mixed strategy. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of understanding human competition behaviors from the angle of non-equilibrium statistical physics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 272 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 7%
China 5 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
France 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 115 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 31%
Student > Master 24 16%
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Professor 7 5%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 4 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 16%
Psychology 24 16%
Physics and Astronomy 23 15%
Computer Science 17 11%
Engineering 11 7%
Other 47 31%
Unknown 4 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 942. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,110
of 8,386,533 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#35
of 37,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53
of 180,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2
of 641 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,386,533 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 37,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 641 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.