IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Following Recommendations to Avoid Coordination-Failure in 2 x 2 Games

  • John Bone
  • Michalis Drouvelis
  • Indrajit Ray

We consider 2 x 2 games like Battle of the Sexes and Chicken, to test whether or not players are able to coordinate on pure Nash equilibria following recommendations from correlation devices. We use two different correlation devices, public and private, for these games, with the same expected payoffs, in equilibrium. We find that the players overall do achieve coordination by playing the recommended strategies. However, coordination and following recommendations vary significantly among these games.

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: ftp://ftp.bham.ac.uk/pub/RePEc/pdf/12-04.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Birmingham in its series Discussion Papers with number 12-04.

as
in new window

Length: 35 pages
Date of creation: May 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bir:birmec:12-04
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT

Web page: http://www.economics.bham.ac.uk

More information through EDIRC

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. Antonio Cabrales & Walter Garcia Fontes & Massimo Motta, 1997. "Risk dominance selects the leader. An experimental analysis," Economics Working Papers 222, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  2. Indrajit Ray & Sonali Gupta, 2013. "Coarse correlated equilibria in linear duopoly games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(2), pages 541-562, May.
  3. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2001. "The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-169, October.
  4. 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.
  5. John Duffy & Nick Feltovich, 2010. "Correlated Equilibria, Good And Bad: An Experimental Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(3), pages 701-721, 08.
  6. Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Beil, Richard O, 1990. "Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 234-48, March.
  7. Brandts Jordi & Macleod W. Bentley, 1995. "Equilibrium Selection in Experimental Games with Recommended Play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 36-63, October.
  8. Giovanna Devetag & Andreas Ortmann, 2006. "When and Why? A Critical Survey on Coordination Failure in the Laboratory," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp302, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  9. John B. Van Huyck & Raymond C. Battalio & Richard O. Beil, 1991. "Strategic Uncertainty, Equilibrium Selection, and Coordination Failure in Average Opinion Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 885-910.
  10. Marimon, R. & Spear, S. & Sunder, S., 1991. "Expectationally-Driven Market Volatility: An Experimental Study," GSIA Working Papers 1991-3, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
  11. Kenneth Clark & Stephen Kay & Martin Sefton, 1997. "When Are Nash Equilibria Self-Enforcing? An Experimental Analysis," Experimental 9707001, EconWPA.
  12. John Duffy & Nick Feltovich, 2006. "Words, Deeds, and Lies: Strategic Behaviour in Games with Multiple Signals," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 669-688.
  13. Gabriele Camera & Marco Casari & Maria Bigoni, 2010. "Communication, Commitment, and Deception in Social Dilemmas: Experimental Evidence," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1236, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
  14. Duffy, John & Feltovich, Nick, 2002. "Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-27, April.
  15. Moreno, Diego & Wooders, John, 1998. "An Experimental Study of Communication and Coordination in Noncooperative Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 47-76, July.
  16. Greiner, Ben, 2004. "An Online Recruitment System for Economic Experiments," MPRA Paper 13513, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  17. Indrajit Ray & Sonali Sen Gupta, 2012. "Coarse Correlated Equilibria and Sunspots," Discussion Papers 11-14r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
  18. 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, March.
  19. Costa-Gomes, Miguel A., 2002. "A Suggested Interpretation of Some Experimental Results on Preplay Communication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 104-136, May.
  20. Charness, Gary & Grosskopf, Brit, 2004. "What makes cheap talk effective? Experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 383-389, June.
  21. Ananish Chaudhuri & Tirnud Paichayontvijit, 2010. "Recommended play and performance bonuses in the minimum effort coordination game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 346-363, September.
  22. repec:hou:wpaper:2004-01 is not listed on IDEAS
  23. repec:pit:wpaper:358 is not listed on IDEAS
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:bir:birmec:12-04. 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: (Colin Rowat)

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.