IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v16y2013i2p222-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Finitely repeated games with social preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Jörg Oechssler

    ()

Abstract

A well-known result from the theory of finitely repeated games states that if the stage game has a unique equilibrium, then there is a unique subgame perfect equilibrium in the finitely repeated game in which the equilibrium of the stage game is being played in every period. Here I show that this result does in general not hold anymore if players have social preferences of the form frequently assumed in the recent literature, for example in the inequity aversion models of Fehr and Schmidt (Quartely Journal of Economics 114:817–868, 1999 ) or Bolton and Ockenfels (American Economic Review 100:166–193, 2000 ). In fact, repeating the unique stage game equilibrium may not be a subgame perfect equilibrium at all. This finding should have relevance for all experiments with repeated interaction, whether with fixed, random or perfect stranger matching. Copyright Economic Science Association 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jörg Oechssler, 2013. "Finitely repeated games with social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 222-231, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:16:y:2013:i:2:p:222-231
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-012-9336-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10683-012-9336-6
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Balafoutas, Loukas & Kocher, Martin G. & Putterman, Louis & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Equality, equity and incentives: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 32-51.
    4. Martin Brown & Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr, 2004. "Relational Contracts and the Nature of Market Interactions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(3), pages 747-780, May.
    5. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & José Rodríguez Mora, 2012. "It is Hobbes, not Rousseau: an experiment on voting and redistribution," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(2), pages 278-308, June.
    6. John Duffy & Félix Muñoz-García, 2012. "Patience or Fairness? Analyzing Social Preferences in Repeated Games," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, March.
    7. Matthias Sutter & Stefan Haigner & Martin G. Kocher, 2010. "Choosing the Carrot or the Stick? Endogenous Institutional Choice in Social Dilemma Situations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 77(4), pages 1540-1566.
    8. David Masclet & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2008. "Punishment, inequality, and welfare: a public good experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(3), pages 475-502, October.
    9. Sabrina Teyssier, 2008. "Experimental Evidence on Inequity Aversion and Self-Selection between Incentive Contracts," Post-Print halshs-00303727, HAL.
    10. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2001. "Stackelberg Beats Cournot: On Collusion and Efficiency in Experimental Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 749-765, October.
    11. Rubinstein Ariel & Wolinsky Asher, 1995. "Remarks on Infinitely Repeated Extensive-Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 110-115, April.
    12. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    13. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K., 2012. "Fairness, risk preferences and independence: Impossibility theorems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 606-612.
    14. Matthew Rabin & Georg Weizsacker, 2009. "Narrow Bracketing and Dominated Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1508-1543, September.
    15. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    16. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, January.
    17. Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine, 2011. "Fairness and Independence: An Impossibility Theorem," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000001, David K. Levine.
    18. Alain Cohn & Ernst Fehr & Benedikt Herrmann & Frédéric Schneider, 2011. "Social comparison in the workplace: evidence from a field experiment," ECON - Working Papers 007, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Trautmann, Stefan T., 2009. "A tractable model of process fairness under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 803-813, October.
    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. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2014. "Providing global public goods: Electoral delegation and cooperation," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2014-12_2, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    2. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Oechssler, Jörg & Shah, Anwar, 2014. "Hierarchy, coercion, and exploitation: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 155-168.
    3. Kingsley, David C., 2016. "Endowment heterogeneity and peer punishment in a public good experiment: Cooperation and normative conflict," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 49-61.
    4. Arno Riedl & Ingrid M. T. Rohde & Martin Strobel, 2016. "Efficient Coordination in Weakest-Link Games," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 737-767.
    5. Zhijian Wang & Yanran Zhou & Jaimie W. Lien & Jie Zheng & Bin Xu, 2016. "Extortion Can Outperform Generosity in the Iterated Prisoners' Dilemma," Levine's Bibliography 786969000000001297, UCLA Department of Economics.
    6. Gürtler, Marc & Gürtler, Oliver, 2012. "Inequality aversion and externalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 111-117.
    7. repec:cla:levarc:786969000000001297 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. John Duffy & Félix Muñoz-García, 2012. "Patience or Fairness? Analyzing Social Preferences in Repeated Games," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(1), pages 1-22, March.
    9. Nikiforakis, Nikos & Oechssler, Jörg & Shah, Anwar, 2015. "Managerial bonuses, subordinates’ disobedience, and coercion," Working Papers 0589, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    10. Sara Godoy & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez & Antonio Morales, 2015. "No fight, no loss: underinvestment in experimental contest games," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 53-72, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social preferences; Finitely repeated games; Inequity aversion; ERC; C72; C73;

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:kap:expeco:v:16:y:2013:i:2:p:222-231. 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 (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    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.