The participants don’t know the rules, and have been given a hint that they don’t know the rules—as the host said that the choices will be independent/hidden, but then is telling you the other contestant’s choice.
So they can easily assume a chance that the host is lying, or might then give the first contestant a chance to switch his choice, etc.
This is a good catch, and criticism of the “deliberately spoil the experiment” design.
A better design would be to put the contestants in adjacent rooms, but to allow the second contestant to “accidentally” overhear the first (e.g. speaking loudly, through thin walls). Then the experimenter enters the second contestant’s room and asks them whether they want to co-operate or defect.
The participants don’t know the rules, and have been given a hint that they don’t know the rules—as the host said that the choices will be independent/hidden, but then is telling you the other contestant’s choice. So they can easily assume a chance that the host is lying, or might then give the first contestant a chance to switch his choice, etc.
This is a good catch, and criticism of the “deliberately spoil the experiment” design.
A better design would be to put the contestants in adjacent rooms, but to allow the second contestant to “accidentally” overhear the first (e.g. speaking loudly, through thin walls). Then the experimenter enters the second contestant’s room and asks them whether they want to co-operate or defect.