Match Me if You Can: How Smart Choices are Fueled by Competition

In a world of limited resources, scarcity and rivalry are central challenges for decision makers. We examine choice behavior in competitive probability learning environments that reinforce one of two strategies. The optimality of a strategy is dependent on the behavior of a computerized opponent: if the opponent mimics participant choices, probability matching is optimal; if the opponent is indifferent, probability maximizing is optimal. We observed accurate asymptotic strategy use in both conditions suggesting participants were sensitive to the differences in opponent behavior. Moreover, the results emphasize that ‘irrational’ probability matching can be adaptive once such competitive pressures are taken into account. The application of reinforcement learning models to the data suggests that computational conceptualizations of opponent behavior are critical to account for the observed divergence in strategy adoption.

[1]  J. Rieskamp,et al.  SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Where Do Rewards Come From , 2009 .

[3]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Introduction to Reinforcement Learning , 1998 .

[4]  James Kennedy,et al.  Particle swarm optimization , 2002, Proceedings of ICNN'95 - International Conference on Neural Networks.

[5]  E. Wagenmakers.  A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[6]  Nir Vulkan.  An Economist's Perspective on Probability Matching , 2000 .

[7]  C. Gallistel.  The organization of learning , 1990 .

[8]  D. Harper.  Competitive foraging in mallards: “Ideal free’ ducks , 1982, Animal Behaviour.

[9]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World , 2000 .

[10]  D. Shanks,et al.  A Re-examination of Probability Matching and Rational Choice , 2002 .

[11]  J. Godin,et al.  Foraging on patchily distributed prey by a cichlid fish (Teleostei, Cichlidae): A test of the ideal free distribution theory , 1984, Animal Behaviour.

[12]  Eldad Yechiam,et al.  Evaluating the reliance on past choices in adaptive learning models , 2007 .

[13]  Christian P. Janssen,et al.  When, What, and How Much to Reward in Reinforcement Learning-Based Models of Cognition , 2012, Cogn. Sci..

[14]  G. Schwarz.  Estimating the Dimension of a Model , 1978 .

[15]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Environments That Make Us Smart Rationality , 2007 .

[16]  W. C. Allee.  Animal Aggregations: A Study in General Sociology , 1931 .

[17]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. , 2006, Psychological review.

[18]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[19]  Eldad Yechiam,et al.  Comparison of basic assumptions embedded in learning models for experience-based decision making , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[20]  Willem A. Wagenaar,et al.  On the psychology of playing blackjack: Normative and descriptive considerations with implications for decision theory. , 1985 .