IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ecj/econjl/v107y1997i442p576-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Coordination Games

Author

Listed:
  • Van Huyck, John B
  • Battalio, Raymond C
  • Rankin, Frederick W

Abstract

The authors report the results of a coordination game experiment. The experiment carefully distinguishes between conventions based on labels and conventions based on populations. Their labels treatments investigate the abstraction assumptions that underlie the concept of a strategy, while their population treatments investigate the attraction of alternative mutually consistent ways to play under adaptive behavior. The authors observe conventions emerging in communities with one population and labels and with two populations and no labels, but the most effective treatment is two labeled populations. They estimate logistic response learning models for individual subject behavior. Of the models considered, a version of exponential fictitious play fits the authors' data best. Copyright 1997 by Royal Economic Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Rankin, Frederick W, 1997. "On the Origin of Convention: Evidence from Coordination Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(442), pages 576-596, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecj:econjl:v:107:y:1997:i:442:p:576-96
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-0133%28199705%29107%3A442%3C576%3AOTOOCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=bc
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Cartwright, Edward & Wooders, Myrna, 2004. "Correlated equilibrium and behavioral conformity," Economic Research Papers 269625, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    2. Michele Bernasconi & Matteo Galizzi, 2010. "Network formation in repeated interactions: experimental evidence on dynamic behaviour," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 9(2), pages 193-228, December.
    3. Verena Kurz & Andreas Orland & Kinga Posadzy, 2018. "Fairness versus efficiency: how procedural fairness concerns affect coordination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 601-626, September.
    4. Masiliūnas, Aidas, 2019. "Overcoming inefficient lock-in in coordination games with sophisticated and myopic players," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Bernardo A. Huberman & Tad Hogg HP Laboratories, 2003. "Quantum Solution of Coordination Problems," Game Theory and Information 0306005, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Alm, James & McKee, Michael, 2004. "Tax compliance as a coordination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 297-312, July.
    7. Landeo, Claudia M. & Spier, Kathryn E., 2015. "Incentive contracts for teams: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 496-511.
    8. John Cadigan, 2005. "The Citizen Candidate Model: An Experimental Analysis," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 197-216, April.
    9. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2005. "An experimental study of costly coordination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 349-364, May.
    11. John Van Huyck & Frederick Rankin & Raymond Battalio, 1999. "What Does it Take to Eliminate the use of a Strategy Strictly Dominated by a Mixture?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 129-150, December.
    12. Andreas Blume & Douglas V. DeJong & George R. Neumann & N. E. Savin, 2002. "Learning and communication in sender-receiver games: an econometric investigation," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 225-247.
    13. David Bodoff, 2013. "When learning meets salience," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(2), pages 241-266, February.
    14. Gary E. Bolton & Kalyan Chatterjee & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2003. "How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(5), pages 583-598, May.
    15. Blume, A. & DeJong, D.V. & Neumann, G. & Savin, N.E., 2000. "Learning and Communication in Sender-Reciever Games : An Economic Investigation," Discussion Paper 2000-09, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    16. Van Huyck, John & Battalio, Raymond, 2002. "Prudence, Justice, Benevolence, and Sex: Evidence from Similar Bargaining Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 227-246, May.
    17. Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger & Phu Nguyen Van, 2008. "Optimization incentive and relative riskiness in experimental coordination games," Working Papers 08-19, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Nov 2008.
    18. repec:spr:joevec:v:29:y:2019:i:4:d:10.1007_s00191-018-0587-z is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Martin Sefton, 1999. "A Model of Behavior in Coordination Game Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 151-164, December.
    20. Rankin, Frederick W. & Van Huyck, John B. & Battalio, Raymond C., 2000. "Strategic Similarity and Emergent Conventions: Evidence from Similar Stag Hunt Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 315-337, August.

    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:ecj:econjl:v:107:y:1997:i:442:p:576-96. 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: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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 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.

    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.