Laboratory of community media

About Project] [About Blog Library Board Training Subjects Electronic commerce Electronic Government Competitive intelligence Conflict Management and International Marketing Multimedia infobiznes Politics Social Media Public Relations
"Prisoner dilemma" rubber wall - method for the diagnosis of interpersonal relations. The name arose from a situation which is proposed to introduce playing. It lies in the fact that two prisoners suspected of common crimes. They are placed in a separate chamber. Everyone has the opportunity to inform the other offense, hoping to get less punishment. If none of them report the crime to others, both receive minor punishment; rubber wall if one says, and the other not, the one that reported to be released to freedom, and the other will receive severe punishment if they are both informed, both get a small punishment, but it will be greater than what they could get if both silent . Result of the game can be represented in the table, which of course participants are introduced before the game. In a situation of "prisoners dilemma" rubber wall players must choose between rubber wall cooperative (b) and competitive behavior (d), taking into account the motives rubber wall of the other choice. In terms of individual results Player And he always advantageous to inform the other (d). But the fact is that if player B will come from the same position, they both get relatively few points. rubber wall And based on maximum mutual result, they both have to choose silence rubber wall (b), but then everyone leaves for another opportunity to abuse the trust. Players need to make a choice at a time: in some cases not coming into contact, in other cases allowed to communicate (communication impact study is your choice). The game can be played many times, and after each round the players communicated the results for which they receive a prize or punishment. In the role player can make more than one person, and the team leader with or without him. The experiment was carried out in two ways: 1 of 2 participants; 2 of 2 groups of participants. The latter is the subject of the study group behavior rubber wall in situations of need decision in uncertain outcome rubber wall and equal alternatives. The difference between the first version of the second is the first variant of the subject requires further thinking aloud and introspection; the second researcher can directly rubber wall observe the interaction in the group. However, experiments in the second rubber wall embodiment complicated due to the significant expansion of the range of significant factors: different communicative activities and competence of participants, rubber wall additional points of understanding individual tasks etc. At the beginning of the experiment participants reported rubber wall that one of them (who defined) will play for prisoner and the other for the guard. Further rubber wall prisoner conventionally placed in a chamber that has the following rubber wall form. All camera angles, as well as the parties are identical. The guard is outside. Instructions for the prisoner: "Your task - to choose one of the corners to escape. Escape will be considered successful if the guard did not guess that the angle you choose. Record selection and its justification rubber wall in the protocol. " Instructions for guard: "Your task - to guess which prepares corner prisoner escape and prevent escape. Record rubber wall your choice and justify it in the record. rubber wall " After the first experimenter records they checked with the announcement of the results of the participants. Then analyzes the reasons choice. If it turns out that the first phase of the experiment, participants went on formal grounds and did not account for persons enemy, that it did not attempt to model its behavior, the experimenter emphasizes in this discussion and proceed to the second stage. In the second stage experiment is repeated (participants can change places). The experimenter should consider that any decision Lists unsatisfactory in terms of formal rationality. Therefore, it is important to accurately formulate the question of the hypothesis, namely: to whom is the dilemma? Often confused real dilemma, which in this case occurs before the player party, with the problem that arises in the researcher who must recommend the optimal solution. Optimal solution in this situation, no way out of the conflict rubber wall for the same user is getting sufficient for modeling the behavior of enemy bases. The experiment may have a didactic function, clearly showing a situation where ordinary idea of rational behavior are unusable. With the game "prisoner dilemma" rubber wall can create a situation for the diagnosis styles of leadership that seeks to compete or to cooperate in the relationship, compatibility of people, etc. This game is a test Techniques for modeling certain rubber wall interpersonal relations. The ability to not only observe, but also to model the desired behaviors predictive great opportunity to make this game a situational test promising technique for the diagnosis of interpersonal relations.
Website
Laboratory of community media