淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


  查詢圖書館館藏目錄
系統識別號 U0002-1606201118541300
中文論文名稱 囚犯兩難賽局的理論與實驗:從教室觀點
英文論文名稱 Theory and Experiment of Prisoner's Dilemma: From Point of View of a Classroom
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 國際商學碩士在職專班
系所名稱(英) Executive Master's Program of Business Administration (EMBA) in International Commerce
學年度 99
學期 2
出版年 100
研究生中文姓名 王怡心
研究生英文姓名 I-Hsin Wang
學號 798520200
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2011-06-09
論文頁數 81頁
口試委員 指導教授-蔡政言
共同指導教授-蔡明芳
委員-鮑世亨
委員-楊志海
委員-陳財家
中文關鍵字 賽局  囚犯兩難  實驗 
英文關鍵字 game theory  prisoner's dilemma  experiment 
學科別分類 學科別社會科學商學
中文摘要 由於賽局理論的目的即在運用數學模式,簡化現實中複雜的互動關係,以提供參與者選擇最佳策略之準則,然而賽局理論中的囚犯兩難賽局之怪異性,在於參與者為了極大化自身利益而採行優勢策略,也就是達到均衡,導致雙方所獲得的報酬比採行劣勢策略較差。
本研究利用實驗法進行教室實驗,以檢視囚犯兩難賽局在理論和現實之差異:觀察參與者的決策選擇並進一步探討參與者背景,包含性別、所屬學院和曾修習之課程對於決策差異之影響。
實驗結果發現,雖然全部參與者選擇背叛策略的比例高於合作策略,但為機率式選擇和囚犯兩難賽局之均衡不同,參與者非一定選擇優勢策略。全部參與者性別和所屬學院對其選擇策略並不產生影響,然而是否修習過數學二則對選擇策略產生影響。此外分析參與者背景因素之交互作用,實驗結果發現參與者的性別與學院的交互作用對於選擇策略則有顯著差異。本研究發現,曾修習過數學一、數學二和經濟學之參與者選擇背叛的比例較未修習過課程之參與者低,此結果無法和Frank、Gilovich與Regan(1993)認為主修經濟學的學生者比較考慮自身利益,在囚犯兩難的實驗中採行背叛的比例較高以及學習經濟學抑制合作行為之研究結果一致。
英文摘要 Since the purpose of game theory in the use of mathematical models that simplify the complex interaction in reality, it provides participants criteria to choose the best strategy. However, the eccentric nature of prisoner’s dilemma in game theory is that due to pursuing the advantages of the player’s own self-interest, each player adopts a dominant strategy as equilibrium and it leads both players getting fewer payoffs compared to choose a dominated strategy.
We conducted a classroom experiment by using experiment method to examine the theory and reality application of prisoner’s dilemma. The purpose of this paper is not only to observe how people choose the strategy in the game, but also to analyze the background of participants, including gender, school and studied courses, to further explore the factors effecting on strategy difference.
The results showed that the probability of chooing to betray was higher than it of choosing to cooperate, but the strategy was made by probabilistic mechanism, not in line with the equilibrium of prisoner’s dilemma, and participants don’t choose dominant strategy. School and gender in all participants do not affect their choice of strategy, but Mathematics II studying in all participants has impact on betrayal behavior. Moreover, to analyze the interaction of participants’ background, it was found that participants in the interaction of gender and school have significant differences on betrayal behavior. Surprisingly, we found the proportion of participants choosing betrayal who had studied Math Ι, Math II and economics is lower than that of participants who never had studied the courses, and the result does not coincide with the previous finding (Frank, Gilovich & Regan, 1993) that students majoring in economics consider their own interests and adopt a higher proportion of betrayal and studying economics inhibits the cooperative behavior.
論文目次 謝 辭 I
中文摘要 II
英文摘要 III
目 錄 V
表目錄 VI
圖目錄 VII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究流程 3
第三節 研究內容 3
第四節 研究限制 4
第二章 文獻回顧 6
第一節 賽局理論 6
第二節 實驗設計研究 31
第三章 實驗研究設計與實驗進行 39
第一節 實驗設計 39
第二節 實驗進行的方法 40
第四章 實驗結果分析說明 45
第一節 分析方法 45
第二節 實驗結果 46
第五章 結論與建議 71
第一節 研究結論 71
第二節 研究建議 73
附件︰結果登記單 74
參考文獻 75

表目錄
表2-1︰賽局型態 ....................................................................................................... 13
表2-2︰賽局的種類與其對應之均衡概念 ............................................................... 17
表2-3︰囚犯賽局報酬結構標準型態 ....................................................................... 20
表2-4:賽局應用相關文獻 ....................................................................................... 30
表2-5:國外賽局實驗相關文獻 ............................................................................... 37
表2-6:國內賽局實驗相關文獻 ............................................................................... 38
表3-1︰參與者所屬學院系所分佈 ........................................................................... 40
表3-2︰遊戲報酬結構表 ........................................................................................... 44
表4-1︰第1 回合和第12 回合賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ............................. 47
表4-2︰每回合賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ....................................................... 48
表4-3︰每回合賄賂決策之T 檢定 ........................................................................... 49
表4-4︰每回合決策之比例 ....................................................................................... 51
表4-5︰性別和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ....................................................... 53
表4-6︰所屬學院和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ............................................... 54
表4-7︰各學院男性、各學院女性和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ................... 55
表4-8︰是否修習數學一和採取賄賂之單因子變異數分析 ................................... 57
表4-9︰是否修習數學二和採取賄賂之單因子變異數分析 ................................... 57
表4-10︰是否修習經濟學和採取賄賂之單因子變異數分析 ................................. 58
表4-11︰是否修習數學一之男性、女性和賄賂之單因子變異數分析 ................. 59
表4-12︰未修習、曾修習數學二之男性女性和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 . 60
表4-13︰男性未修習、男性曾修習數學二和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ..... 61
表4-14︰女性未修習、男性曾修習數學二和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ..... 61
表4-15︰男女性曾修習和未修習經濟學和賄賂決策之單因子變異數分析 ......... 62
表4-16︰所屬學院和性別對於賄賂決策之雙因子變異數分析 ............................. 63
表4-17︰是否修習過數學一和性別對於賄賂之雙因子變異數分析 ..................... 64
表4-18︰是否修習過數學二和性別對於賄賂決策之雙因子變異數分析 ............. 65
表4-19︰是否修習過經濟學和性別對於賄賂之雙因子變異數分析 ..................... 65
表4-20︰是否修習過經濟學和數學一對於賄賂之雙因子變異數分析 ................. 66
表4-21︰是否修習過經濟學和數學二對於賄賂之雙因子變異數分析 ................. 67
表4-22︰所屬學院和是否修習數學一對於賄賂決策之雙因子變異數分析 ......... 68
表4-23︰所屬學院和是否修習數學二對於賄賂決策之雙因子變異數分析 ......... 69
表4-24︰所屬學院和是否修習經濟學對於賄賂決策之雙因子變異數分析 ......... 69

圖目錄
圖4-1︰每回合賄賂決策比例曲線圖 ....................................................................... 52
參考文獻 1. 王景輝(2006)。宏觀調控下多國因應政策之研究-以賽局觀點。淡江大學國際企業所碩士論文。
2. 宋惠吟(2004)。理性選擇理論與國際安全研究。國立政治大學外交學系碩士論文。
3. 巫和懋、夏珍(2002)。賽局高手︰全方位策略與應用(初版)。台北市︰時報文化。
4. 李秀玉(1999)。應用賽局理論分析我國薄膜電晶體液晶顯示器產業之競爭策略。國立交通大學科技管理研究所碩士論文。
5. 林瑜芬(1993)。核四爭議中台電公司與環保聯盟衝突互動之研究:以博奕理論(Game Theory)為分析架構。輔仁大學大眾傳播學系碩士論文。
6. 邱敬斌(2009)。囚犯困境賽局下互動策略的理論與實証比較研究–以台北市內湖垃圾掩埋場為例。國立台北大學都市計畫研究所博士論文。
7. 洪蘭、曾志朗(譯)(1989)。心理學實驗研究法。台北市:遠流出版公司。(Underwood, B. J., & Shaughnessy, J. J. 1975)
8. 康端嚴(2003)。從多階段賽局模型解析新加坡與馬來西亞兩國政府間的水供談判。政治大學經濟研究所碩士論文。
9. 張志豪(2003)。成本差異與訊息不對稱下之終止議價賽局-實驗法之應用。 國立台灣科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
10. 張維迎(1997)。博弈論與訊息經濟學(初版)。上海︰人民出版社。
11. 張維迎、劉楚俊(2001)。賽局理論與信息經濟學。台北市:茂昌圖書有限公司。
12. 彭思諺(2009)。框架、對手期待與報酬大小對重複的獨裁者遊戲的影響。國立交通大學工業工程與管理學系碩士論文。
13. 黃俊傑(1999)。策略不確定性與協調失敗–沉默協調賽局的實驗結果。國立台灣科技大學企業管理研究所碩士論文。
14. 黃強倪(2002)。企業水平競合分析模式之發展與應用–以大型購物中心為例。國立成功大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
15. 黃瑞良(2002)。遊戲理論之電腦模擬─對手選擇對於反覆囚犯困局之影響。國立交通大學資訊科學系碩士論文。
16. 楊家彥、張健一、吳麗珍(2003)。賽局理論與訊息經濟。台北︰五南圖書。
17. 劉建忠(2003)。應用賽局理論分析高科技廠房工程競爭行為之研究。國立中央大學營建管理研究所碩士論文。
18. 樊泌萍(1996)。國民小學德育教材設計-實驗賽局理論之應用。思與言,第34卷,第1期,263-282。
19. 樊泌萍、劉素芳(1995)。企業經營與理性決策:1960年唐榮失敗案例。思與言,第33卷,第4期,106-142。
20. 鄭中安(2002)。機會與訊息不對稱下之終止議價賽局–實驗法之應用。國立台灣科技大學企業管理所碩士論文。
21. 鄧方(譯)(1996)。賽局理論與經濟模型(初版)。台北:五南圖書出版公司。(Kreps, D. M.,1990)
22. 謝淑貞(1999)。賽局理論(第二版)。台北市︰三民書局。
23. 謝試予(2002)。經濟博弈論(第二版)。上海︰復旦大學出版社。
24. 藍兆杰、徐偉傑、陳怡君(譯)(2002)。策略的賽局(初版)。台北:弘智文化事業有限公司。(Dixit, A. K., & Skeath, S., 2002)
25. 顏種盛(2003)。以賽局理論觀點探討我國無線區域網路設備產業之競爭策略。元智大學管理研究所碩士論文。
26. 羅浚杰(2008)。以賽局理論探討民間土地整合開發之地主拿翹行為。國立台北大學不動產與城鄉環境學系碩士論文。
1. Acevedo, M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Evidential Reasoning in the Prisoner's Dilemma. The American Journal of Psychology, 118 (3), 431-457.
2. Ahmed, A. (2008). Can Education Affect Pro-social Behavior? : Cops, Economists and Humanists in Social Dilemmas. International Journal of Social Economics, 35(4), 298-307.
3. Alba-Fernández, V., Brañas-Garza, P., Jiménez-Jiménez, F., & Rodero-Cosano, J. (2006). Teaching Nash Equilibrium and Dominance: A Classroom Experiment on the Beauty Contest. Journal of Economic Education, 37(3), 305-322.
4. Alvin, R. (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Axelord, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
6. Axelrod, R. (1980). Effective Choice in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 77-86.
7. Axelrod, R. (2000). On Six Advances in Cooperation Theory. Analyse and Kritik 22, 130-151.
8. Boone, C., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998). Competitive and Opportunistic Behavior in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Culture and Education. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 41.
9. Boone, C., De Brabander, B., & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999). The Impact of Personality on Behavior in Five Prisoner’s Dilemma Games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20(3), 343-377.
10. Brams, S. J. (1975). Newcomb's problem and Prisoner's Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19(4), 596-612.
11. Bruttel, L., Guth, W., & Kamecke, U. (2007). Time to Defect: Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma Experiments with Uncertain Horizon. Jena Economic Research Paper, 2007-098.
12. Carmerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. D. (1991). Are Economists Different, and if So, Why?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 171-177.
14. Cook, H., & Chi, C. (1984). Cooperative Behavior and Locus of Control among American and Chinese-American Boys. Journal of Psychology, 118, 169–177.
15. Cook, H., & Sloane, J. (1985). Locus of Control and Cooperative Behaviour in 10-Year-Old Children. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(4), 619-630.
16. Cournot, A. A. (1838). Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la théorie des richesses. Trans. N. T. Bacon (1927). Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. New York: Macmillan.
17. Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences on Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 827–847.
18. Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
19. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social Dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
20. Deutsch, K.W. (1978). The Analysis of International Relations (2nd Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
21. Dimand, R. W., & Dimand, M. A. (1996). Strategic Interdependence. In The History of Game Theory, Vol. 1. London: Routledge.
22. Dimand, R. W., & Dimand, M. A. The Early History of the Theory of Strategic Games from Waldwegrave to Borel. In E. R.Weintraub, (Ed.).(1992), Toward a History of Game Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.
23. Dixit, A. K., & Skeath, S. (2002). Game Theory. New York: W W Norton.
24. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347-369.
25. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does Studying Econmics Inhibit Cooperatopn?. The Jounal of Economics Perspectives, 7(2), 159-171.
26. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Grimalda, G., Kar, A., & Proto, E. (2008). On the Value of Participation: Endogenous Emergence of Social Norms in a Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiment. International Review of Economics, 55(1-2), 127-147.
28. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, Property Rights and Anonymity in Bargaining Games, Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346-380.
29. James, H. S. Jr., & Cohen, J. P. (2004). Does Ethics Training Neutralize the Incentives of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Evidence from a Classroom Experiment. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 53-61.
30. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30(2), 167-214.
31. Kahn, A., Hottes, J., & Davis, W. L. (1971). Cooperation and Optimal Responding in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game: Effects of Sex and Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 267-279.
32. Kermit, W. (1992). Cooperative in Regional Transportation Planning: Planning the Lake- Will North Expressway. Chicago: Illinois University.
33. Knaap, G. J., Hopkins, L. D., & Donaghy K. P. (1998). Do Plans Matter? A Game- Theoretic Model for Examining the Logic and Effect of Land Use Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18, 25-34.
34. Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
35. Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. (1975). Individual Differences in Game Motivation as Moderators of Preprogrammed Strategic Effects in Prisoner's Dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922-931.
36. Lai, Y. H. (2005). A Study of Learning Model for Analyzing Prisoners’ Dilemma Data. Master Thesis of Dept. of Accounting. National Cheng-Chi University, Taiwan.
37. Leonard, R. J. (1992). Creating a Context for Game Theory. In E. R Weintraub (Ed.). Toward a History of Game Theory. Durham: Duke University Press. 61-65.
38. Marks, M., Lehr, D., & Brastow, R. (2006). Cooperation versus Free Riding in a Threshold Public Goods Classroom Experiment. Journal of Economic Education, 37(2), 156-170.
39. Mason, C. F., Phillips, O. R., & Redington, D. B. (1991). The Role of Gender in a Noncooperative Game. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 15, 215–235.
40. McDonald, I. M., & Solow, R. M. (1981). Wage Bargaining and Employment. American Economic Review, 71, 896-908.
41. McGinnis, M. D. (1986). Issue Linkage and the Evolution of International Cooperation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30(1), 141-170.
42. Moore, M. R., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. M. (1997). Governing a Groundwater Commons: A Strategic and Laboratory Analysis of Western Water Law. Economic Inquiry, 35(2), 218-234.
43. Myerson, B. R. (1991). Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
44. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty Years of Experimental Gaming: Critique, Synthesis, and Suggestions for the Future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363-392.
46. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
47. Rapoport, A. (1974). Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
48. Rapoport, A., & Chammah, A. M. (1965). Prisoner’s Dilemma:A Study in Conflict and Cooperation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
49. Rapoport, A., Guyer, M. J., & Gordon D. G. (1976). The 2 X 2 Game. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
50. Rasmusen, E. (1989). Games and Information. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell.
51. Romp, G. (1997). Game Theory: Introduction and Applications. New York: Oxford Press.
52. Schelling, T. (1970). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
53. Sibley, S., Senn S., & Epanchin, A. (1968). Race and Sex of Adolescents and Cooperationin a Mixed-Motive Game, Psychonomic Science, 13, 123-124.
54. Smith, V. L. (1976). The Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274-279.
55. Smith, V. L. (1989). Theory, Experiment and Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(1), 151-169.
56. Tedeschi, J. T., Hiester, D., & Gahagan, J. (1969). Matrix Values and the Behavior of Children in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Child Development, 40, 517–527.
57. Underwood, B. J., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (1975). Experimentation in psychology. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
58. Zagare, F. C. (1984). Game theory: Concepts and Application. Beverly Hills and London: Sage Publications.
59. Zhong, C. B., Loewenstein, J., & Murnighan, J. K. (2007). Speaking the Same Language: The Cooperative Effects of Labeling in the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(3), 431-456.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2016-06-30公開。
  • 不同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信