↓ Skip to main content

Correlates of Cooperation in a One-Shot High-Stakes Televised Prisoners' Dilemma

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
25 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Correlates of Cooperation in a One-Shot High-Stakes Televised Prisoners' Dilemma
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0033344
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maxwell N. Burton-Chellew, Stuart A. West

Abstract

Explaining cooperation between non-relatives is a puzzle for both evolutionary biology and the social sciences. In humans, cooperation is often studied in a laboratory setting using economic games such as the prisoners' dilemma. However, such experiments are sometimes criticized for being played for low stakes and by misrepresentative student samples. Golden balls is a televised game show that uses the prisoners' dilemma, with a diverse range of participants, often playing for very large stakes. We use this non-experimental dataset to investigate the factors that influence cooperation when "playing" for considerably larger stakes than found in economic experiments. The game show has earlier stages that allow for an analysis of lying and voting decisions. We found that contestants were sensitive to the stakes involved, cooperating less when the stakes were larger in both absolute and relative terms. We also found that older contestants were more likely to cooperate, that liars received less cooperative behavior, but only if they told a certain type of lie, and that physical contact was associated with reduced cooperation, whereas laughter and promises were reliable signals or cues of cooperation, but were not necessarily detected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Spain 2 3%
Mexico 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 24%
Psychology 14 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 12 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,055,970
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,649
of 218,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,175
of 166,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#201
of 3,720 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,720 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.