The prisoner's dilemma is a fundamental example in game theory. It shows how two rational individuals might not cooperate, even when it's in their best interest to do so. It also demonstrates the concept of Nash equilibrium, where each player's choice is the best response to the other's decision.
Imagine two business rivals, Firm A and Firm B, that are accused of price-fixing. They are questioned separately and have two options: to confess (betray the other) or to deny (cooperate). The outcomes depend on their decisions:
The Nash equilibrium in this scenario occurs when both firms choose to confess. Even though denying would be better for both, each has the fear of cooperating with the other firm confessing. This leads them both to act defensively, resulting in each firm suffering a less favorable outcome than if they had both cooperated. This example illustrates how the structure of incentives can lead rational players to make decisions that do not maximize their joint benefit. The Prisoner's Dilemma game highlights the challenges of cooperation when trust and communication are absent.
From Chapter 18:
Now Playing
Game Theory
22 Views
Game Theory
60 Views
Game Theory
54 Views
Game Theory
27 Views
Game Theory
89 Views
Game Theory
16 Views
Game Theory
29 Views
Game Theory
24 Views
Game Theory
20 Views
Game Theory
12 Views
Game Theory
14 Views
Game Theory
22 Views
Game Theory
37 Views
Game Theory
24 Views
Game Theory
16 Views
See More
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved