Incentive and stability in the Rock-Paper-Scissors game: an experimental investigation

TL;DR

This study investigates how incentives influence the dynamics and stability of strategies in the generalized Rock-Paper-Scissors game through experimental data, revealing continuous behavioral changes and phase transitions.

Contribution

It provides the first quantitative analysis of how incentives affect social and individual strategy dynamics in generalized RPS games, including behavioral shifts and stability changes.

Findings

Strategy transition patterns become more centripetal with increased stability.

A phase transition in individual strategy behavior occurs near standard RPS.

Conditional responses like win-stay and lose-shift behaviors vary systematically with incentives.

Abstract

In a two-person Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS) game, if we set a loss worth nothing and a tie worth 1, and the payoff of winning (the incentive a) as a variable, this game is called as generalized RPS game. The generalized RPS game is a representative mathematical model to illustrate the game dynamics, appearing widely in textbook. However, how actual motions in these games depend on the incentive has never been reported quantitatively. Using the data from 7 games with different incentives, including 84 groups of 6 subjects playing the game in 300-round, with random-pair tournaments and local information recorded, we find that, both on social and individual level, the actual motions are changing continuously with the incentive. More expressively, some representative findings are, (1) in social collective strategy transit views, the forward transition vector field is more and more centripetal as the stability of the system increasing; (2) In the individual behavior of strategy transit view, there exists a phase transformation as the stability of the systems increasing, and the phase transformation point being near the standard RPS; (3) Conditional response behaviors are structurally changing accompanied by the controlled incentive. As a whole, the best response behavior increases and the win-stay lose-shift (WSLS) behavior declines with the incentive. Further, the outcome of win, tie, and lose influence the best response behavior and WSLS behavior. Both as the best response behavior, the win-stay behavior declines with the incentive while the lose-left-shift behavior increase with the incentive. And both as the WSLS behavior, the lose-left-shift behavior increase with the incentive, but the lose-right-shift behaviors declines with the incentive. We hope to learn which one in tens of learning models can interpret the empirical observation above.