Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T09:53:34.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Entry #5 - The Prisoner's Dilemma: Me versus We

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2009

Harold H. Kelley
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
John G. Holmes
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Norbert L. Kerr
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Harry T. Reis
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, New York
Caryl E. Rusbult
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Paul A. M. Van Lange
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Get access

Summary

Examples

Perhaps the best-known interdependence situation is the Prisoner's Dilemma, a situation that derives its name from the classic anecdote about two prisoners who were accused of robbing a bank. In this anecdote, described in Luce and Raiffa (1957), the district attorney, unable to prove that they were guilty, created a dilemma in an attempt to motivate the prisoners to confess to the crime. The prisoners were put in separate rooms, where each prisoner was to make a choice: to confess or not to confess.

The district attorney sought to make confessing tempting to the prisoners by creating a situation in which the sentence was determined not only by their own confessing or not but also by the fellow prisoner's confessing or not. Yet irrespective of the fellow prisoner's choice, the choice to confess yielded a better outcome (or less worse outcome) than did the choice not to confess. Specifically, when the other confessed, confessing yielded “only” an 8-year sentence, whereas not confessing yielded a 10-year sentence. And when the other did not confess, confessing yielded only a 3-month sentence, whereas not confessing yielded a 1-year sentence. So, from this perspective, it seems rational for each prisoner to confess to the crime. However, the crux of the dilemma is that the outcome following from both confessing (an 8-year sentence) is worse than the outcome following from both not confessing (a 1-year sentence).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×