The Evolution of Trust Uses Game Theory To Explain Why We (Don’t) Trust Each Other
The Evolution of Trust by Nicky Case is an interactive guide that explores the concept of trust in a variety of scenarios using what is perhaps the most common example of a game in game theory: the prisoner’s dilemma.
The original premise of the prisoner’s dilemma as we discussed in class involves two criminal suspects who must choose between cooperating by betraying their accomplice (the other player) to avoid punishment themselves or refusing to cooperate with the authorities. If one player chooses to betray and the other chooses not to cooperate, the player who chose to betray their accomplice will be set free while the player who didn’t cooperate will receive the harshest possible sentence (generally standardized to three or five years in most examples). If both players cooperate with the authorities, each of them will serve a lesser sentence of two years, and if neither of them cooperates, both of them will serve only one year in prison. Since the most beneficial move (the dominant strategy) for each player is to betray the other person in order to stay a free man, this dilemma shows that people who are acting rationally may still choose not to cooperate despite doing so being in their best interests.
Building off this idea, The Evolution of Trust simulates different iterations of the prisoner’s dilemma in which you will be playing anywhere between 3-7 rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma game (you will not know in advance how many rounds you are going to play) against opponents with different strategies (some pictured below) trying to figure out what the best strategy is for each type of person you will be up against — Is it possible for trust to prevail as part of a viable winning strategy? If so, how? Is it possible to win against someone who is always betraying you by trusting them?
At the end of the simulation, we reach the following conclusion about the actions we just took:
But The Evolution of Trust also leaves us with an idea that is much bigger than just the prisoner’s dilemma: The way we treat one another in situations where we need to choose between cooperating and not cooperating heavily depends on the nature of the situation we’re in (or the game we’re playing), and how likely we are to get along with one another in these situations depends on the payoffs, meaning that it’s possible to facilitate cooperation by incentivizing it.