Skip to main content

Agent-Based Simulation of the N-Person Chicken Game

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games ((AISDG,volume 9))

Abstract

We report computer simulation experiments using our agent-based simulation tool to model the multi-person Chicken game. We simplify the agents according to the Pavlovian principle: their probability of taking a certain action changes by an amount proportional to the reward or penalty received from the environment for that action.

The individual agents may cooperate with each other for the collective interest or may defect, i.e., pursue their selfish interests only. Their decisions to cooperate or defect accumulate over time to produce a resulting collective order that determines the success or failure of the public system. After a certain number of iterations, the proportion of cooperators stabilizes to either a constant value or oscillates around such a value.

The payoff (reward/penalty) functions are given as two curves: one for the cooperators and another for the defectors. The payoff curves are functions of the ratio of cooperators to the total number of agents. The actual shapes of the payoff functions depend on many factors. Even if we assume linear payoff functions, there are four parameters that are determined by these factors.

The payoff functions for a multi-agent Chicken game have the following properties. (1) Both payoff functions increase with an increasing number of cooperators. (2) In the region of low cooperation the cooperators have a higher reward than the defectors. (3) When the cooperation rate is high, there is a higher payoff for defecting behavior than for cooperating behavior. (4) As a consequence, the slope of the D function is greater than that of the C function and the two payoff functions intersect. (5) All agents receive a lower payoff if all defect than if all cooperate.

We have investigated the behavior of the agents under a wide range of payoff functions. The results show that it is quite possible to achieve a situation where the enormous majority of the agents prefer cooperation to defection.

The Chicken game of using cars or mass transportation in large cities is considered as a practical application of the simulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brams S. (1975), Game Theory and Politics, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Flache A. and Macy M.W. (1996), Weakness of strong ties: Collective action failure in a highly cohesive group, J. Math. Sociology, 21, 3–28.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegselmann R. and Flache A. (1998), Understanding complex social dynamics: A plea for cellular automata based modelling, J. Artificial Soc. Social Simul., 1, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Komorita S.S. and Parks C.D. (1994), Social Dilemmas, Brown and Benchmark, Madison,WI.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Narendra K.S. and Thathachar M.A.L. (1989), Learning Automata (An Introduction), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Poundstone W. (1992), Prisoner’s Dilemma, Doubleday, New York, 197–201.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schroeder, D.A. ed. (1995), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups, Praeger, Westport, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Snidal D. (1991), Relative gains and the pattern of international cooperation, Amer. Political Sci. Rev., 85, 701–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Szidarovszky F. and Szilagyi M.N. (2002), An analytical study of the N-person prisoners’ dilemma, Southwest J. Pure Appl. Math.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Szilagyi M.N. (2003), An investigation of N-person Prisoners’ Dilemmas, Complex Systems, 14, 155–174.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Szilagyi M.N. and Szilagyi Z.C. (2000), A tool for simulated social experiments. Simulation, 74:1, 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Szilagyi M.N. and Szilagyi Z.C. (2002), Nontrivial Solutions to the N-Person Prisoners’Dilemma, Systems Res. Behavioral Sci., 19:3, 281–290.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Thorndike E.L. (1911), Animal Intelligence, Hafner, Darien, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Watson A.Y., Bates R.R. and Kennedy D. (1988), Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health. National Academy Press, Washington,D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Willis T. (1992), Cars: an Environmental Challenge, Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wolfram S. (1994), Cellular Automata and Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading,MA.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Birkhäuser Boston

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Szilagyi, M.N. (2007). Agent-Based Simulation of the N-Person Chicken Game. In: Jørgensen, S., Quincampoix, M., Vincent, T.L. (eds) Advances in Dynamic Game Theory. Annals of the International Society of Dynamic Games, vol 9. Birkhäuser Boston. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-8176-4553-3_34

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics