IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v80y2019icp80-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How many games are we playing? An experimental analysis of choice bracketing in games

Author

Listed:
  • Bland, James R.

Abstract

Individuals who bracket decisions narrowly ignore the consequences of one decision when making another decision. Such behavior is well documented in experiments where subjects make decisions in the absence of strategic considerations. This paper uses an economic experiment to investigate whether people also bracket their decisions in games. Subjects played two Volunteer’s Dilemmas at the same time, with the payoffs from both games added to their earnings. Aggregate play in the game is not consistent with predictions made by assuming all subjects bracket either narrowly or broadly. On the individual level, structural modeling suggests that most subjects bracket narrowly in the game.

Suggested Citation

  • Bland, James R., 2019. "How many games are we playing? An experimental analysis of choice bracketing in games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 80-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:80-91
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804318303616
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.011?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 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. Stefan Penczynski & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2023. "Decomposed games, focal points, and the framing of collective and individual interests," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 20-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Stefan Penczynski & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2020. "Compound games, focal points, and the framing of collective and individual interests," Working Papers 305138214, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    3. James R. Bland, 2019. "Measuring and Comparing Two Kinds of Rationalizable Opportunity Cost in Mixture Models," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-27, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Choice bracketing; Laboratory experiment; Volunteer’s dilemma; Mixture model; Quantal response equilibrium;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:soceco:v:80:y:2019:i:c:p:80-91. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    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/620175 .

    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.