IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common and almost common knowledge of credible assignments in a coordination game


  • Ananish Chaudhuri

    () (Department of Economics, University of Auckland)

  • Chenan Zhou

    () (Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Auckland)

  • Parapin Prak

    () (Department of Economics, University of Auckland)

  • Laura Bangun

    () (Department of Economics, University of Auckland)


We build on Van Huyck, Gillette and Battalio (1992) and examine the efficacy of credible assignments in a stag-hunt type coordination game with two Pareto-ranked equilibria, one payoff dominant and the other risk dominant. The majority of our subjects fail to coordinate to the payoff dominant outcome when no assignment is made. However, the majority of them always coordinate to the payoff dominant outcome when an assignment is made. This happens regardless of whether the assignment is “almost common knowledge” or “common knowledge”.

Suggested Citation

  • Ananish Chaudhuri & Chenan Zhou & Parapin Prak & Laura Bangun, 2006. "Common and almost common knowledge of credible assignments in a coordination game," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(1), pages 1-10.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-05c90025

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Beil, Richard O, 1990. "Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 234-248, March.
    2. Cooper, Russell, et al, 1990. "Selection Criteria in Coordination Games: Some Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 218-233, March.
    3. Rydval, Ondrej & Ortmann, Andreas, 2005. "Loss avoidance as selection principle: Evidence from simple stag-hunt games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 101-107, July.
    4. Russell Cooper & Douglas V. DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Thomas W. Ross, 1992. "Communication in Coordination Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 739-771.
    5. Van Huyck, John B. & Gillette, Ann B. & Battalio, Raymond C., 1992. "Credible assignments in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 606-626, October.
    6. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1989. "The Electronic Mail Game: Strategic Behavior under "Almost Common Knowledge."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 385-391, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Radu, Vranceanu & Besancenot, Damien & Dubart, Delphine, 2013. "Can Rumors and Other Uninformative Messages Cause Illiquidity ?," ESSEC Working Papers WP1309, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School, revised Jun 2014.
    2. repec:ebl:ecbull:eb-17-00049 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Giovanna Devetag & Hykel Hosni & Giacomo Sillari, 2012. "You Better Play 7: Mutual versus Common Knowledge of Advice in a Weak-link Experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1201, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    4. Dugar, Subhasish, 2010. "Nonmonetary sanctions and rewards in an experimental coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 377-386, March.
    5. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Paichayontvijit, Tirnud & So, Tony, 2015. "Team versus individual behavior in the minimum effort coordination game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 85-102.
    6. repec:hal:journl:hal-00841167 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item



    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory


    Access and download statistics


    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-05c90025. 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: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.