It's My Turn ... Please, After You: An Experimental Study of Cooperation and Social Conventions
AbstractWe introduce a class of two-player cooperation games where each player faces a binary decision, enter or exit. These games have a unique Nash equilibrium of entry. However, entry imposes a large enough negative externality on the other player such that the unique social optimum involves the player with the higher value to entry entering and the other player exiting. When the game is repeated and players' values to entry are private, cooperation admits the form of either taking turns entering or using a cutoff strategy and entering only for high private values of entry. Even with conditions that provide opportunities for unnoticed or non-punishable 'cheating', our empirical analysis including a simple strategy inference technique reveals that the Nash-equilibrium strategy is never the modal choice. In fact, most subjects employ the socially optimal symmetric cutoff strategy. These games capture the nature of cooperation in many economic and social situations such as bidding rings in auctions, competition for market share, labor supply decisions in the face of excess supply, queuing in line and courtship.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by EconWPA in its series Experimental with number 0410001.
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: 06 Oct 2004
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 37
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://22.214.171.124
cooperation; incomplete information; random payoffs; strategy inference; experimental economics.;
Other versions of this item:
- Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2004. "It's My Turn . . . Please, After You: An Experimental Study of Cooperation and Social Conventions," Discussion Papers 0403, Exeter University, Department of Economics.
- C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2004-10-21 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2004-10-13 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2004-10-21 (Experimental Economics)
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.:
- McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John, 1992.
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 82(3), pages 579-99, June.
- Timothy Cason & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Takehiko Yamato, 2002.
"Voluntary Participation and Spite in Public Good Provision Experiments: An International Comparison,"
Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 133-153, October.
- Cason, T.N. & Saijo, T. & Yamato, T., 1998. "Voluntary Participation and Spite in Public Good Provision Experiments: an International Comparison," Papers 98-002, Purdue University, Krannert School of Management - Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER).
- Cason, T.N. & Saijo, T. & Yamato, T., 2000. "Voluntary Participation and Spite in Public Good Provision Experiments: an International Comparison," ISER Discussion Paper 0491, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
- Klemperer, Paul, 2000.
"What Really Matters in Auction Design,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2581, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Cramton Peter & Schwartz Jesse A, 2002.
"Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions,"
The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,
De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-20, December.
- Peter Cramton & Jesse Schwartz, 2002. "Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Papers of Peter Cramton 02collude, University of Maryland, Department of Economics - Peter Cramton, revised 04 Dec 2002.
- Peter Cramton & Jesse Schwartz, 2000. "Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1210, Econometric Society.
- Ernst Fehr & Simon Gaechter, 1999.
"Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
183, CESifo Group Munich.
- Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
- Ernst Fehr & Simon Gaechter, . "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," IEW - Working Papers 010, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Chamberlain, Gary, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 225-38, January.
- Smith, Vernon L, 1985. "Experimental Economics: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 264-72, March.
- Eyal Winter & Amnon Rapoport & Darryl A. Seale, 2000. "An experimental study of coordination and learning in iterated two-market entry games," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 661-687.
- Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2006. "The Strategies Behind Their Actions: A Method To Infer Repeated-Game Strategies And An Application To Buyer Behavior," Departmental Working Papers 2005-04, McGill University, Department of Economics.
- Rapoport, Amnon & Seale, Darryl A. & Winter, Eyal, 2002. "Coordination and Learning Behavior in Large Groups with Asymmetric Players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 111-136, April.
- Arthur, W Brian, 1994. "Inductive Reasoning and Bounded Rationality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 406-11, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.