IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Do people make strategic commitments? Experimental evidence on strategic information avoidance

  • Anders Poulsen


  • Michael Roos

Game theory predicts that players make strategic commitments that may appear counter-intuitive. We conducted an experiment to see if people make a counter-intuitive but strategically optimal decision to avoid information. The experiment is based on a sequential Nash demand game in which a responding player can commit ahead of the game not to see what a proposing player demanded. Our data show that subjects do, but only after substantial time, learn to make the optimal strategic commitment. We find only weak evidence of physical timing effects.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer in its journal Experimental Economics.

Volume (Year): 13 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Pages: 206-225

in new window

Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:206-225
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2007. "Influence through ignorance," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(4), pages 931-947, December.
  2. Fershtman, Chaim & Gneezy, Uri, 2001. "Strategic Delegation: An Experiment," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 352-68, Summer.
  3. van Damme,Eric, 1987. "Stable equilibria and forward induction," Discussion Paper Serie A 128, University of Bonn, Germany.
  4. Fonseca, M.A. & Müller, W. & Normann, H.T., 2006. "Endogenous timing in duopoly : Experimental evidence," Other publications TiSEM 4ce35136-68ab-4ee4-a119-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  5. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
  6. Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Wieland Müller, . "From Ultimatum to Nash Bargaining: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-07, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
  7. Santos-Pinto, Luís, 2006. "Making Sense of the Experimental Evidence on Endogenous Timing in Duopoly Markets," MPRA Paper 3142, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Apr 2007.
  8. Anders Poulsen & Jonathan Tan, 2007. "Information acquisition in the ultimatum game: An experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 391-409, December.
  9. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2000. "Perfect versus Imperfect Observability--An Experimental Test of Bagwell's Result," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 174-190, May.
  10. Huck, S. & Müller, W., 2005. "Burning money and (pseudo) first-mover advantages : An experimental study on forward induction," Other publications TiSEM 572509ab-51a9-4b52-837d-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  11. Esther Hauk & Sjaak Hurkens, 2001. "Secret information acquisition in Cournot markets," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 661-681.
  12. Güth, W. & Müller, W. & Spiegel, Y., 2006. "Noisy leadership : An experimental approach," Other publications TiSEM e4796461-8862-4085-a867-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  13. Bensaid, B. & Gary-Bobo, J., 1991. "On the commitment value of contracts under renegotiation constraints," CORE Discussion Papers 1991002, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  14. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  15. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
  16. Kyle Bagwell, 1992. "Commitment and Observability in Games," Discussion Papers 1014, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  17. Camerer, Colin F. & Knez, Marc & Weber, Roberto A., 1996. "Timing and Virtual Observability in Ultimatum Bargaining and Weak Link Coordination Games," Working Papers 970, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  18. Shakun Datta Mago & Emmanuel Dechenaux, 2009. "Price leadership and firm size asymmetry: an experimental analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 289-317, September.
  19. Hurkens, Sjaak & Vulkan, Nir, 2006. "Endogenous private information structures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 35-54, January.
  20. Roberto Weber & Colin Camerer & Marc Knez, 2004. "Timing and Virtual Observability in Ultimatum Bargaining and “Weak Link†Coordination Games," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 25-48, February.
  21. Bensaid, Bernard & Gary-Bobo, Robert J, 1993. "Commitment Value of Contracts under Renegotiation Constraints," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(6), pages 1423-29, November.
  22. Hamilton, Jonathan H. & Slutsky, Steven M., 1990. "Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or cournot equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, March.
  23. Miguel Fonseca & Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann, 2005. "Playing Cournot although they shouldn’t," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 669-677, 04.
  24. George Loewenstein & Don Moore & Roberto Weber, 2006. "Misperceiving the value of information in predicting the performance of others," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 281-295, September.
  25. Fershtman, Chaim & Kalai, Ehud, 1997. "Unobserved Delegation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 38(4), pages 763-74, November.
  26. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Rapoport, Amnon, 1998. "The limitations of the positional order effect: Can it support silent threats and non-equilibrium behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 313-325, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:13:y:2010:i:2:p:206-225. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Christopher F. Baum)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.