玩“石头、剪刀、布”的时候，许多人都有一套自己的策略，他们相信那就是自己制胜的诀窍。

But a new study reveals players actually don't stick to a plan, rather they become irrational when making their next move - including using the same item that was once a winner.

不过一项新研究发现，玩家其实并不遵循所谓的“策略”，相反，他们常常不理智，比如会倾向赢了后出上一个手势。

Researchers suggest that if you want to be victorious, choose paper because most people tend to go for rock.

研究表明，如果你想在游戏中取得胜利，那就要出“布”，因为大多数人都倾向于出“石头”。

WHAT DID THE study FIND?

“石头、剪刀、布”里的奥秘

石头、剪刀、布

Even if participants had a set plan for their next move, their emotions would make the act irrational.

即使玩家已经打算好下一个要出什么手势，情绪也会导致他们的最终决定不理智。

Each of the three items carries equal status, which means the only rational method is to use each one an equal number of times - any other approach is irrational, said researchers.

研究员称，这三种手势赢的概率相同，因此唯一理智的玩法就是出每种手势的次数相同，其他的任何玩法都是不理智的。

The study revealed that participants followed a 'win-stay, lose-shift' strategy in how they played the game, which means when they won a round they kept repeating their winning item.

研究表示，玩家遵循着“赢了就出上个手势，输了再换其他手势”的策略，因此一旦赢了一局，之后就总是重复之前的手势。

It wasn't until they lost did they change their action.

只要一直没输，他们就不会换其他的手势。

Although the optimal strategy is to pick one of the three equally and at random, most people tended to over use rock.

因此，最佳的游戏策略是在这个三个手势中随机出任一个，且每种手势出的概率相等。不过多数人总会倾向于出“石头”。

'Rock, paper, scissors (RPS) is a game where predictions of human rational decision-making can be compared with actual performance,' reads the study published in the journal Scientific Reports.

《科学报告》杂志中写道：在“剪刀、石头、布”的游戏里，人们以为自己能做出理性的决策，但实际的表现却大相径庭。

'Playing a computerized opponent adopting a mixed-strategy equilibrium, participants revealed a non-significant tendency to over-select rock.'

“计算机玩家采取了平衡策略，即出每种手势的概率相等，但真实玩家却略微表现出更爱出‘石头’的倾向。”

'It's worrying that people tended to make more irrational decisions following a loss,' said Dr. Ben Dyson, lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sussex.

英国萨塞克斯大学心理学教授本?戴森说道：“人们在经历失败后会倾向于做出不理智的决定，这点实在令人担忧。“

'This could have more serious implications in higher-stake scenarios where people are competing to out maneuver one another - in economics or politics, for example.'

“在从事其他更高风险性的事务时，这种倾向可能带来严重后果，比如说当人们需要在经济或政治领域打败对手时。”

These irrational decisions are driven by an emotional reaction to a negative outcome and leaves people vulnerable to a smart opponent.'

“不理智的决定源于人们面对负面结果时的情绪，这样的情绪会使人面对精明的对手时处于劣势。”

'Emotion might have some distracting effect that deteriorates the quality of our thought.

“情绪可能会分散注意力，降低思考质量。”

'If we can learn to separate emotion from outcome, like successful Poker players, we might be able to mitigate this risk.'

“如果我们学会分开情绪和输赢结果，像成功的扑克玩家那样，或许能减少这种风险。”