IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v240y2025ics0167268125004378.html

The effect of acute tryptophan depletion on beliefs in a Stag Hunt game

Author

Listed:
  • Bengart, Paul
  • Declerck, Carolyn H.
  • Neumann, Thomas
  • Vogt, Bodo

Abstract

Coordinating on the payoff dominant (yet risky) strategy in the Stag Hunt game hinges on beliefs that the partner will also select the risky strategy. The purpose of the study was to test the possible involvement of serotonin, a neurotransmitter implicated in mentalizing and prosocial behavior. We conducted an experiment comparing the effect of acute tryptophan depletion treatment (which momentarily lowers serotonin availability in the brain) to a placebo group (receiving a similar treatment but without depletion) and a control group (without treatment). Participants (N = 113 males) played two rounds of an incentivized Stag Hunt game and also stated their beliefs regarding the strategy of their partner. The results corroborate that tryptophan-depleted participants’ estimates of their partner choosing the risky strategy are significantly lower (amounting to a 13 % reduction compared to placebo and 16 % reduction compared to control), while risk attitudes and mood remained unchanged. Almost all participants played best response according to their beliefs. We conclude that serotonin is a necessary (but not sufficient) element underscoring successful, mutually beneficial coordination.

Suggested Citation

  • Bengart, Paul & Declerck, Carolyn H. & Neumann, Thomas & Vogt, Bodo, 2025. "The effect of acute tryptophan depletion on beliefs in a Stag Hunt game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:240:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125004378
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125004378
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107320?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary E. Bolton & Christoph Feldhaus & Axel Ockenfels, 2016. "Social Interaction Promotes Risk Taking in a Stag Hunt Game," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 409-423, August.
    2. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2002. "Sex Differences and Statistical Stereotyping in Attitudes Toward Financial Risk," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    3. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    4. Berninghaus, Siegfried K. & Haller, Sven & Krüger, Tyll & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2013. "Risk attitude, beliefs, and information in a Corruption Game – An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 46-60.
    5. Sim B. Sitkin & Nancy L. Roth, 1993. "Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic “Remedies” for Trust/Distrust," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 367-392, August.
    6. Thomas Neumann & Bodo Vogt, 2009. "Do Players’ Beliefs or Risk Attitudes Determine The Equilibrium Selections in 2x2 Coordination Games?," FEMM Working Papers 09024, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    7. Silvia Ferrari & Francisco Cribari-Neto, 2004. "Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(7), pages 799-815.
    8. Simon Gächter & Elke Renner, 2010. "The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 364-377, September.
    9. Hazem Alshaikhmubarak & David Hales & Maria Kogelnik & Molly Schwarz & C. Kent Strauss, 2024. "Knowing me, knowing you: an experiment on mutual payoff information in the stag hunt and Prisoner’s Dilemma," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 428-441, December.
    10. Battalio, Raymond & Samuelson, Larry & Van Huyck, John, 2001. "Optimization Incentives and Coordination Failure in Laboratory Stag Hunt Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 749-764, May.
    11. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    12. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    13. Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs Kuilen, 2015. "Belief Elicitation: A Horse Race among Truth Serums," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 2116-2135, December.
    14. Simon Heß, 2017. "Randomization inference with Stata: A guide and software," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 17(3), pages 630-651, September.
    15. Achtziger, Anja & Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Wagner, Alexander K., 2016. "The impact of self-control depletion on social preferences in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-16.
    16. Fredrik Jansson & Kimmo Eriksson, 2015. "Cooperation and Shared Beliefs about Trust in the Assurance Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Paul Bengart & Theo Gruendler & Bodo Vogt, 2021. "Acute tryptophan depletion in healthy subjects increases preferences for negative reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Yaw Nyarko & Andrew Schotter, 2002. "An Experimental Study of Belief Learning Using Elicited Beliefs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 971-1005, May.
    19. Young, Alwyn, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 101401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Alwyn Young, 2019. "Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(2), pages 557-598.
    21. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    22. Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2009. "Equilibrium play and best response to (stated) beliefs in normal form games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 572-585, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    2. Berninghaus, Siegfried K. & Haller, Sven & Krüger, Tyll & Neumann, Thomas & Schosser, Stephan & Vogt, Bodo, 2013. "Risk attitude, beliefs, and information in a Corruption Game – An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 46-60.
    3. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    4. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Maoliang Ye & Jie Zheng & Plamen Nikolov & Sam Asher, 2020. "One Step at a Time: Does Gradualism Build Coordination?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 113-129, January.
    6. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    7. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2019. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Working Papers 2019-19, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Andreas Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2023. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 189-213, April.
    9. Andrea Hackethal & Michael Kirchler & Christine Laudenbach & Michael Razen & Annika Weber, 2020. "On the role of monetary incentives in risk preference elicitation experiments," Working Papers 2020-29, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    10. Armantier, Olivier & Treich, Nicolas, 2013. "Eliciting beliefs: Proper scoring rules, incentives, stakes and hedging," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 17-40.
    11. repec:osf:osfxxx:pj9u2_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Roth, Benjamin & Trautmann, Stefan T. & Voskort, Andrea, 2016. "The role of personal interaction in the assessment of risk attitudes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 106-113.
    13. Paul Bengart & Theo Gruendler & Bodo Vogt, 2021. "Acute tryptophan depletion in healthy subjects increases preferences for negative reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, March.
    14. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    15. Fišar, Miloš & Kubák, Matúš & Špalek, Jiři & Tremewan, James, 2016. "Gender differences in beliefs and actions in a framed corruption experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 69-82.
    16. Felix Holzmeister & Matthias Stefan, 2021. "The risk elicitation puzzle revisited: Across-methods (in)consistency?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 593-616, June.
    17. Lora R. Todorova & Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Bodo Vogt, 2011. "A Simple Questionnaire Can Change Everything - Are Strategy Choices in Coordination Games Stable?," FEMM Working Papers 110019, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    18. Goldzahl, Léontine, 2017. "Contributions of risk preference, time orientation and perceptions to breast cancer screening regularity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 147-157.
    19. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    20. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, IZA Network @ LISER.
    21. Masaki Aoyagi & Guillaume Frechette & Sevgi Yuksel, 2021. "Beliefs in Repeated Games," ISER Discussion Paper 1119r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:jeborg:v:240:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125004378. 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/jebo .

    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.