IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gra/wpaper/19-10.html

Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt Game

Author

Listed:
  • Valerio Capararo

    (Department of Economics, Middlesex University.)

  • Ismael Rodriguez-Lara

    (Department of Economic Theory and Economic History, University of Granada.)

  • Maria J. Ruiz Martos

    (Department of Economic Theory and Economic History, University of Granada.)

Abstract

Recent work highlights that cooperation in the one-shot Prisoner’s dilemma (PD) is primarily driven by moral preferences for doing the right thing, rather than social preferences for equity or efficiency. By contrast, little is known on what motivates cooperation in the Stag-Hunt Game (SHG). Cooperation in the SHG fundamentally differs from cooperation in the PD in that it is not costly, but risky: players have no temptation to deviate from the cooperative outcome, but cooperation only pays off if the other player cooperates. Here, we provide data from a large (N=436), pre-registered, experiment. Contrary to what has been observed for the PD, we find that SHG cooperation is primarily driven by preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for doing the right thing.

Suggested Citation

  • Valerio Capararo & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Maria J. Ruiz Martos, 2019. "Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt Game," ThE Papers 19/10, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    • Handle: RePEc:gra:wpaper:19/10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ugr.es/~teoriahe/RePEc/gra/wpaper/thepapers19_10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Long Huang & Wansheng Lei & Fuming Xu & Hairong Liu & Liang Yu & Fujun Shi & Lei Wang, 2020. "Maxims nudge equitable or efficient choices in a Trade-Off Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Wu, Yu’e & Zhang, Zhipeng & Yang, Guoli & Liu, Haixin & Zhang, Qingfeng, 2022. "Evolution of cooperation driven by diversity on a double-layer square lattice," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    4. Valerio Capraro, 2020. "Gender differences in the trade-off between objective equality and efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 534-544, July.
    5. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2025. "Moral preferences in ultimatum and impunity games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Jorrat, Diego, 2021. "Recruiting experimental subjects using WhatsApp," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Jan Libich & Dat Thanh Nguyen & Hubert Janos Kiss, 2023. "Running Out of Bank Runs," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 64(1), pages 1-39, August.
    8. Greiff, Matthias & Kempa, Karol, 2025. "Avoiding catastrophic climate change: Heterogeneous abatement costs and voting on redistribution in a threshold public good experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    9. Babin, J. Jobu & Foray, Marine & Hussey, Andrew, 2021. "Shelter-in-place orders, loneliness, and collaborative behavior," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Geraldine Guarin & J. Jobu Babin, 2021. "Collaboration and Gender Focality in Stag Hunt Bargaining," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-7, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gra:wpaper:19/10. 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: Angel Solano Garcia. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dtugres.html .

    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.