IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v110y2018icp273-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry

Author

Listed:
  • Hwang, Sung-Ha
  • Lim, Wooyoung
  • Neary, Philip
  • Newton, Jonathan

Abstract

When coordination games are played under the logit choice rule and there is intentional bias in agents' non-best response behavior, we show that the Egalitarian bargaining solution emerges as the long run social norm. Without intentional bias, a new solution, the Logit bargaining solution emerges as the long run norm. These results contrast with results under non-payoff dependent deviations from best response behavior, where it has previously been shown that the Kalai–Smorodinsky and Nash bargaining solutions emerge as long run norms. We complement the theory with experiments on human subjects, results of which suggest that non-best response play is payoff dependent and displays intentional bias. This suggests the Egalitarian solution as the most likely candidate for a long run bargaining norm.

Suggested Citation

  • Hwang, Sung-Ha & Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip & Newton, Jonathan, 2018. "Conventional contracts, intentional behavior and logit choice: Equality without symmetry," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 273-294.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:110:y:2018:i:c:p:273-294
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2018.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825618300708
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2018.05.002?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
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon D Angus & Jonathan Newton, 2015. "Emergence of Shared Intentionality Is Coupled to the Advance of Cumulative Culture," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    3. Sung-Ha Hwang & Jonathan Newton, 2017. "Payoff-dependent dynamics and coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(3), pages 589-604, October.
    4. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    5. Newton, Jonathan & Sawa, Ryoji, 2015. "A one-shot deviation principle for stability in matching problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 1-27.
    6. Young H. P., 1993. "An Evolutionary Model of Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 145-168, February.
    7. Klaus, Bettina & Newton, Jonathan, 2016. "Stochastic stability in assignment problems," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 62-74.
    8. Newton, Jonathan & Angus, Simon D., 2015. "Coalitions, tipping points and the speed of evolution," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 172-187.
    9. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    10. Agastya, Murali, 1999. "Perturbed Adaptive Dynamics in Coalition Form Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 207-233, December.
    11. Nax, Heinrich H. & Pradelski, Bary S. R., 2015. "Evolutionary dynamics and equitable core selection in assignment games," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65428, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    13. Alan Beggs, 2005. "Waiting times and equilibrium selection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 599-628, April.
    14. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    15. Sawa, Ryoji, 2014. "Coalitional stochastic stability in games, networks and markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 90-111.
    16. Blume Lawrence E., 1993. "The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 387-424, July.
    17. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    18. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 195-208.
    19. Young, H Peyton, 1993. "The Evolution of Conventions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 57-84, January.
    20. Newton, Jonathan, 2012. "Coalitional stochastic stability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 842-854.
    21. Neary, Philip R., 2012. "Competing conventions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 301-328.
    22. Nax, Heinrich H. & Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N. & West, Stuart A. & Young, H. Peyton, 2016. "Learning in a black box," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68714, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    23. Naidu, Suresh & Hwang, Sung-Ha & Bowles, Samuel, 2010. "Evolutionary bargaining with intentional idiosyncratic play," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 31-33, October.
    24. Nax, Heinrich H. & Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N. & West, Stuart A. & Young, H. Peyton, 2016. "Learning in a black box," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-15.
    25. Kandori, Michihiro & Mailath, George J & Rob, Rafael, 1993. "Learning, Mutation, and Long Run Equilibria in Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 29-56, January.
    26. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2016. "Egalitarian–utilitarian bounds in Nash’s bargaining problem," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 427-442, March.
    27. Pradelski, Bary S.R. & Young, H. Peyton, 2012. "Learning efficient Nash equilibria in distributed systems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 882-897.
    28. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    29. Chun, Youngsub, 1988. "The equal-loss principle for bargaining problems," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 103-106.
    30. repec:syd:wpaper:2123/9993 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Ken Binmore & Larry Samuelson & Petyon Young, 2003. "Equilibrium Selection in Bargaining Models," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000466, UCLA Department of Economics.
    32. H.D. Block & Jacob Marschak, 1959. "Random Orderings and Stochastic Theories of Response," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 66, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    33. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry & Young, Peyton, 2003. "Equilibrium selection in bargaining models," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 296-328, November.
    34. Heinrich Nax & Bary Pradelski, 2015. "Evolutionary dynamics and equitable core selection in assignment games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 903-932, November.
    35. Ken Binmore, 1998. "Game Theory and the Social Contract - Vol. 2: Just Playing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 2, number 0262024446, December.
    36. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Netzer, Nick, 2010. "The logit-response dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 413-427, March.
    37. Binmore, Ken, 2005. "Natural Justice," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195178111.
    38. Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip R., 2016. "An experimental investigation of stochastic adjustment dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 208-219.
    39. H. Peyton Young, 1998. "Conventional Contracts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(4), pages 773-792.
    40. Newton, Jonathan, 2012. "Recontracting and stochastic stability in cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 364-381.
    41. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65422, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Roberto Serrano, 2020. "Sixty-Seven Years of the Nash Program: Time for Retirement?," Working Papers 2020-20, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    2. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli, 2020. "The evolution of conventions under condition-dependent mistakes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 497-521, March.
    3. Sung-Ha Hwang & Jonathan Newton, 2017. "Payoff-dependent dynamics and coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(3), pages 589-604, October.
    4. Dietrichson, Jens & Gudmundsson, Jens & Jochem, Torsten, 2022. "Why don’t we talk about it? Communication and coordination in teams," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 257-278.
    5. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    6. Eugenio Vicario, 2021. "Imitation and Local Interactions: Long Run Equilibrium Selection," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Sawa, Ryoji, 2019. "Stochastic stability under logit choice in coalitional bargaining problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 633-650.
    8. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli, 2018. "Social coordination with locally observable types," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(4), pages 975-1009, June.
    9. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A stochastic stability analysis with observation errors in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 570-589.
    10. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Nax, Heinrich H., 2021. "What noise matters? Experimental evidence for stochastic deviations in social norms," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    11. Roberto Rozzi, 2021. "Competing Conventions with Costly Information Acquisition," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, June.
    12. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A prospect theory Nash bargaining solution and its stochastic stability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 692-711.
    13. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Reference-dependent preferences, super-dominance and stochastic stability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 96-104.
    14. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2021. "Evolutionary stability of behavioural rules in bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 399-414.
    15. Roberto Serrano, 2021. "Sixty-seven years of the Nash program: time for retirement?," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 35-48, March.
    16. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Newton, Jonathan, 2020. "Evolution and Rawlsian social choice in matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-80.
    17. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    18. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    19. Nax, Heinrich H. & Newton, Jonathan, 2019. "Risk attitudes and risk dominance in the long run," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 179-184.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Newton, 2018. "Evolutionary Game Theory: A Renaissance," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-67, May.
    2. Sawa, Ryoji, 2019. "Stochastic stability under logit choice in coalitional bargaining problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 633-650.
    3. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    4. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli, 2020. "The evolution of conventions under condition-dependent mistakes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 497-521, March.
    5. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A prospect theory Nash bargaining solution and its stochastic stability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 692-711.
    6. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Newton, Jonathan, 2020. "Evolution and Rawlsian social choice in matching," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 68-80.
    7. repec:syd:wpaper:2123/9993 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Reference-dependent preferences, super-dominance and stochastic stability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 96-104.
    9. Khan, Abhimanyu, 2022. "Expected utility versus cumulative prospect theory in an evolutionary model of bargaining," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    10. Kevin Hasker, 2014. "The Emergent Seed: A Representation Theorem for Models of Stochastic Evolution and two formulas for Waiting Time," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000954, David K. Levine.
    11. Sung-Ha Hwang & Jonathan Newton, 2017. "Payoff-dependent dynamics and coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(3), pages 589-604, October.
    12. Maria Montero & Alex Possajennikov, 2021. "An Adaptive Model of Demand Adjustment in Weighted Majority Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Nax, Heinrich Harald & Newton, Jonathan, 2022. "Deep and shallow thinking in the long run," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 17(4), November.
    14. Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip R., 2016. "An experimental investigation of stochastic adjustment dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 208-219.
    15. Newton, Jonathan, 2015. "Stochastic stability on general state spaces," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 46-60.
    16. Sawa, Ryoji, 2021. "A stochastic stability analysis with observation errors in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 570-589.
    17. Newton, Jonathan & Wait, Andrew & Angus, Simon D., 2019. "Watercooler chat, organizational structure and corporate culture," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 354-365.
    18. Jindani, Sam, 2022. "Learning efficient equilibria in repeated games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    19. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Prospect dynamics and loss dominance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-124.
    20. Benndorf, Volker & Martínez-Martínez, Ismael & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2021. "Games with coupled populations: An experiment in continuous time," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    21. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 195-208.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Evolution; Nash program; Logit choice; Egalitarianism;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory

    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:eee:gamebe:v:110:y:2018:i:c:p:273-294. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.