Abstract
Adult participants played computerised games of "Paper Scissors Rock". Participants in one group were told that they were playing against the computer, and those in the other group were told that they were playing against another participant in the adjacent room. The participant who won the most games would receive a $50 prize. For both groups however, the opponent's responses (paper, scissors, or rock) were generated by the computer, and the distribution of these responses was varied across four blocks of 126 trials. Results were analysed using the generalised matching law for the three possible pairs of alternatives (paper vs. scissors, paper vs. rock, and scissors vs. rock) across all participants in each group. Overall, significantly higher estimates of sensitivity to the distribution of opponent's responses were obtained from participants who were told their opponent was a computer compared to participants who were told their opponent was another participant. While adding to the existing literature showing that the generalised matching law is an adequate descriptor of human three-alternative choice behaviour, these findings show that external factors such as perceived opponent type can affect the efficacy of reinforcer contingencies on human behaviour. This suggests that generalising the results from tasks performed against a computer to real-life human-to-human interactions warrants some caution.