IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v23y1977i12p1336-1348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects of Communication and Information Availability in an Experimental Study of a Three-Person Game

Author

Listed:
  • J. Keith Murnighan

    (University of Illinois, Urbana)

  • Alvin E. Roth

    (University of Illinois, Urbana)

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of six communication/information conditions on the outcomes reached by three-person groups playing a characteristic function game. The game was played by a monopolist and two weaker players. The conditions consisted of six combinations which varied the amount of information available to the players and their ability to communicate with one another. The investigation focused on the effects of the independent variables and the relationship between the data and several game theoretic solution concepts. The results indicated that the monopolist's payoffs depended to a large extent on the communication/information conditions. Announcement of the payoff division and the availability of messages tended to reduce his payoffs. In conditions where no messages were allowed, the monopolist's payoffs increased over time. Although the data diverged significantly from the core, the situations which contributed to greater competition resulted in outcomes closer to the core. A comparison between von Neumann-Morgenstern solutions and the more general class of subsolutions indicated that subsolutions were more reflective of the behavior observed. In addition, the results over the entire set of conditions closely approximated the Shapley value, which has recently been shown to be a risk neutral player's expected utility for playing the game. Directions for future research were suggested.

Suggested Citation

  • J. Keith Murnighan & Alvin E. Roth, 1977. "The Effects of Communication and Information Availability in an Experimental Study of a Three-Person Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(12), pages 1336-1348, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:23:y:1977:i:12:p:1336-1348
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.23.12.1336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.23.12.1336
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.23.12.1336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chessa, Michela & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Lardon, Aymeric & Yamada, Takashi, 2023. "An experiment on the Nash program: A comparison of two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 88-104.
    2. Maria Montero & Martin Sefton & Ping Zhang, 2008. "Enlargement and the balance of power: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 69-87, January.
    3. Baron, David P. & Bowen, T. Renee & Nunnari, Salvatore, 2017. "Durable coalitions and communication: Public versus private negotiations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Rod Garratt & James E. Parco & Cheng-Zhong Qin & Amnon Rapoport, 2005. "Potential Maximization And Coalition Government Formation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 407-429.
    5. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2023. "An Experimental Nash Program: A Comparison of Non-Cooperative v.s. Cooperative Bargaining Experiments," ISER Discussion Paper 1221, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    6. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2022. "Fairness through the Lens of Cooperative Game Theory: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 810-836, August.
    7. Marco Pagnozzi & Krista J. Saral, 2019. "Entry by successful speculators in auctions with resale," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 477-505, June.
    8. Valley, Kathleen L. & Moag, Joseph & Bazerman, Max H., 1998. "'A matter of trust':: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 211-238, February.
    9. Kim, Chulyoung & Kim, Sang-Hyun & Lee, Jinhyuk & Lee, Joosung, 2022. "Strategic alliances in a veto game: An experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    10. Gary E. Bolton & Kalyan Chatterjee & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2013. "How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 6, pages 113-128, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Yan, Huibin & Friedman, Daniel & Munro, David, 2016. "An experiment on a core controversy," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-144.
    12. J. Keith Murnighan & Alvin E. Roth, 1978. "Large Group Bargaining in a Characteristic Function Game," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(2), pages 299-317, June.
    13. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2022. "An experiment on the Nash program: Comparing two strategic mechanisms implementing the Shapley value," ISER Discussion Paper 1175, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    14. S. Wiley Wakeman & George Tsalis & Birger Boutrup Jensen & Jessica Aschemann-Witzel, 2022. "Seeing the Issue Differently (Or Not At All): How Bounded Ethicality Complicates Coordination Towards Sustainability Goals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(2), pages 325-338, June.
    15. H. Andrew Michener & Greg B. Macheel & Charles G. Depies & Chris A. Bowen, 1986. "Mollifier Representation in Non-Constant-Sum Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(2), pages 361-382, June.
    16. Geoffroy de Clippel & Kareen Rozen, 2020. "Fairness through the Lens of Cooperative Game Theory: An Experimental Approach," Working Papers 2020-09, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    17. Michela Chessa & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Aymeric Lardon & Takashi Yamada, 2021. "An Experiment on the Nash Program: Comparing two Mechanisms Implementing the Shapley Value," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-07, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:23:y:1977:i:12:p:1336-1348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.