Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Individual and group behaviours in the traveller’s dilemma: an experimental study

Contents:

Author Info

  • Morone, Andrea
  • Morone, Piergiuseppe

Abstract

This paper provides an experimental test of the traveller’s dilemma using individual and group data. Our investigation aims to address three fundamental research questions, which can be summarised as follows: (i) claims are affected by the size of the penalty/reward; (ii) individual decisions differ significantly from group decisions; (iii) individual claims are affected by the induction of a focal point a là Schelling. Experimental findings reported in this paper provide answers to each of these questions showing that: (i) although the size of the penalty/reward did not affect subject choices in the first-period, it played a key role in determining subjects’ behaviour in the repeated game; (ii) overall, groups behave more rationally, in the sense that they were always closer to the Nash equilibrium; (iii) the reference point did not encourage coordination around the Pareto optimal choice.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/38199/
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 38199.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:38199

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: traveller’s dilemma; focal point; individual and group decision;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Brañas Garza, Pablo & Rey Biel, Pedro, 2008. "Travellers’ Types," DFAEII Working Papers 2010-03, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
  2. Susana Cabrera & C. Capra & Rosario Gómez, 2007. "Behavior in one-shot traveler’s dilemma games: model and experiments with advice," Spanish Economic Review, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 129-152, June.
  3. Matthias Sutter, 2004. "Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-15, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
  4. Martin Kocher & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments," Empirica, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 63-88, March.
  5. Bone, John & Hey, John & Suckling, John, 1999. "Are Groups More (or Less) Consistent Than Individuals?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 63-81, April.
  6. Bone, John, 1998. "Risk-sharing CARA individuals are collectively EU," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 311-317, March.
  7. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  8. Gary Bornstein & Ilan Yaniv, 1998. "Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational†Players?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 101-108, June.
  9. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boèmont & Nathalie Colombier, 2006. "Group and individual risk preferences : a lottery-choice experiment," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00118973, HAL.
  10. Masclet, David & Colombier, Nathalie & Denant-Boemont, Laurent & Lohéac, Youenn, 2009. "Group and individual risk preferences: A lottery-choice experiment with self-employed and salaried workers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 470-484, June.
  11. RobertS. Shupp & ArlingtonW. Williams, 2008. "Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 258-283, 01.
  12. Andrea, Morone & Piergiuseppe, Morone, 2008. "Boundary and interior equilibria: what drives convergence in a ‘beauty contest’?," MPRA Paper 9584, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  13. Tilman Becker & Michael Carter & Jörg Naeve, 2005. "Experts Playing the Traveler's Dilemma," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 252/2005, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
  14. James Cox & Stephen Hayne, 2006. "Barking up the right tree: Are small groups rational agents?," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 209-222, September.
  15. Andreoni,J. & Petrie,R., 2004. "Beauty, gender and stereotypes : evidence from laboratory experiments," Working papers 6, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  16. Gary Bornstein & Tamar Kugler & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2002. "Individual and Group Decisions in the Centipede Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?," Discussion Paper Series dp298, The Center for the Study of Rationality, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
  17. Alistair Munro & Ian Bateman, 2004. "An Experiment On Risky Choice Amongst Households," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2004 77, Royal Economic Society.
  18. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espinosa, María Paz & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2011. "Travelers’ types," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 25-36.
  19. Kaushik Basu & Leonardo Becchetti & Luca Stanca, 2011. "Experiments with the Traveler’s Dilemma: welfare, strategic choice and implicit collusion," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 575-595, October.
  20. Andrea Morone & Serena Sandri & Tobias Uske, 2007. "On the absorbability of the Guessing Game Theory. A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis," series 0017, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Metodi Matematici - Università di Bari, revised Apr 2007.
  21. David Masclet & Youenn Loheac & Laurent Denant-Boèmont & Nathalie Colombier, 2006. "Group and individual risk preferences : a lottery-choice experiment," Post-Print halshs-00118973, HAL.
  22. David J. Cooper & John H. Kagel, 2005. "Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(3), pages 477-509, June.
  23. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, . "Field Centipedes," Economic theory and game theory 020, Oscar Volij.
  24. Sujoy Chakravarty & Emmanuel Dechenaux & Jaideep Roy, 2010. "Ill-Defined versus Precise Pre-Play Communication in the Traveler’s Dilemma," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 77(2), pages 351-368, October.
  25. Andrea Morone & Piergiuseppe Morone, 2007. "Guessing Games and People Behaviours: What Can we Learn?," series 0015, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Metodi Matematici - Università di Bari, revised Feb 2007.
  26. C. Monica Capra, 1999. "Anomalous Behavior in a Traveler's Dilemma?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 678-690, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:38199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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