IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gre/wpaper/2021-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Target-the-Two: A Lab-in-the-field Experiment on Routinization

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Attanasi

    (Université Côte d'Azur, France
    GREDEG CNRS)

  • Massimo Egidi

    (LUISS University, Rome)

  • Elena Manzoni

    (University of Bergamo)

Abstract

The paper investigates the determinants of routinization and creativity by means of a lab-in-the-field experiment run at the 20th edition of a mass gathering festival in Italy ("La Notte della Taranta"). In the experiment, subjects play repeatedly the puzzle version of Target-The-Two game (32 hands). We find that when we focus on expert subjects there is no difference in behavior between creative and routinized individuals. When we consider inexpert subjects, instead, routinized individuals perform better, due to the fact that they are faster. However, routinization, although increasing the likelihood to complete all the 32 hands of the game, it increases the number of moves needed to complete them, which ultimately decreases the likelihood to win the game.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Attanasi & Massimo Egidi & Elena Manzoni, 2021. "Target-the-Two: A Lab-in-the-field Experiment on Routinization," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-43, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    • Handle: RePEc:gre:wpaper:2021-43
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://195.220.198.217/GREDEG-WP-2021-43.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2021
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Casoria, Fortuna & Centorrino, Samuele & Urso, Giulia, 2013. "Cultural investment, local development and instantaneous social capital: A case study of a gathering festival in the South of Italy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 228-247.
    2. Alexis Garapin & Michel Hollard, 1999. "Routines and incentives in group tasks," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 465-486.
    3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Michela Chessa & Sara Gil-Gallen & Patrick Llerena, 2021. "A survey on experimental elicitation of creativity in economics," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(2), pages 273-324.
    4. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    5. Egidi, Massimo & Narduzzo, Alessandro, 1997. "The emergence of path-dependent behaviors in cooperative contexts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 677-709, October.
    6. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Melonie B. Williams, 2002. "Estimating Individual Discount Rates in Denmark: A Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1606-1617, December.
    7. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2004. "Gender and Competition at a Young Age," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 377-381, May.
    8. Katharina Eckartz & Oliver Kirchkamp & Daniel Schunk, 2012. "How do Incentives Affect Creativity?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4049, CESifo.
    9. Brüggemann, Julia & Crosetto, Paolo & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation. Experimental evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10), pages 2054-2068.
    10. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Imas, Alex, 2013. "Experimental methods: Eliciting risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 43-51.
    11. Julia Brüggemann & Paolo Crosetto & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2016. "Intellectual property rights hinder sequential innovation: experimental evidence," Post-Print hal-01997135, HAL.
    12. Giuseppe Attanasi & Francesco Passarelli & Giulia Urso & Hana Cosic, 2019. "Privatization of a Tourism Event: Do Attendees Perceive it as a Risky Cultural Lottery?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    14. Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Luisa Lorè & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2021. "Lab-like findings from online experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 184-193, December.
    15. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    16. Jutta Wollersheim & Koen H. Heimeriks, 2016. "Dynamic Capabilities and Their Characteristic Qualities: Insights from a Lab Experiment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 233-248, April.
    17. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    18. Giuseppe Attanasi & Stefania Bortolotti & Simona Cicognani & Antonio Filippin, 2017. "The drunk side of trust: Social capital generation at gathering events," Working Papers of BETA 2017-21, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Gary Charness & Daniela Grieco, 2019. "Creativity and Incentives," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(2), pages 454-496.
    20. Maurizio Zollo & Sidney G. Winter, 2002. "Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 339-351, June.
    21. Michael D. Cohen & Paul Bacdayan, 1994. "Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 554-568, November.
    22. Uri Gneezy & Muriel Niederle & Aldo Rustichini, 2003. "Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 1049-1074.
    23. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    24. Buso, Irene Maria & De Caprariis, Sofia & Di Cagno, Daniela & Ferrari, Lorenzo & Larocca, Vittorio & Marazzi, Francesca & Panaccione, Luca & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2020. "The effects of COVID-19 lockdown on fairness and cooperation: Evidence from a lablike experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jutta Wollersheim & Koen H. Heimeriks, 2016. "Dynamic Capabilities and Their Characteristic Qualities: Insights from a Lab Experiment," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 233-248, April.
    2. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    3. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    4. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    5. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Hart E. Posen & Maciej Workiewicz, 2017. "Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 1212-1231, June.
    6. David Obstfeld, 2012. "Creative Projects: A Less Routine Approach Toward Getting New Things Done," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1571-1592, December.
    7. Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Hine, Damian & Coote, Len & Parker, Rachel, 2016. "Building a scale for dynamic learning capabilities: The role of resources, learning, competitive intent and routine patterning," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 4287-4303.
    8. Mickaël David & Frantz Rowe, 2015. "Enterprise Systems Contribution to Organizational Routines Evolution Potential [Le rôle des systèmes d’information d’entreprise dans l’évolutivité des routines organisationnelles]," Post-Print hal-01559512, HAL.
    9. van Rijnsoever & Marius Meeus & Roger Donders, 2012. "The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: an experimental approach," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 12-01, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Jan 2012.
    10. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & Meeus, Marius T.H. & Donders, A. Rogier T., 2012. "The effects of economic status and recent experience on innovative behavior under environmental variability: An experimental approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 833-847.
    11. Paul Peigné, 2013. "Routines during an organizational change: a study on dynamics and its effects," Post-Print hal-00876163, HAL.
    12. Rahmeyer Fritz, 2013. "Schumpeter, Marshall, and Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Economics: A Critical Stocktaking," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(1), pages 39-64, February.
    13. Arie Y. Lewin & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters, 2011. "Microfoundations of Internal and External Absorptive Capacity Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 81-98, February.
    14. Bing Bai & Byungjoon Yoo & Xiuquan Deng & Iljoo Kim & Dehua Gao, 2016. "Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: a dynamic perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 184-211, June.
    15. Sheen S. Levine & Mark Bernard & Rosemarie Nagel, 2018. "Strategic intelligence: The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor behaviour," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 527-527, February.
    16. Rodrigo Canales, 2011. "Rule bending, sociological citizenship, and organizational contestation in microfinance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 90-117, March.
    17. Maria Gil-Marques & Maria D. Moreno-Luzon, 2020. "Building Sustainable Contextual Ambidexterity through Routines: A Case Study from Information Technology Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-19, December.
    18. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2010. "A Neo-Darwinian Foundation of Evolutionary Economics. With an Application to the Theory of the Firm," Discussion Paper Series 309, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    19. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Henderson, Austin, 2018. "Experimental methods: Measuring effort in economics experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 74-87.
    20. Wang, Ling & Zhang, Yujia & Yan, Yushan, 2023. "Offensive patent litigation strategic choice: An organizational routine perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    creativity; routinization; Target-The-Two game; lab-in-the-field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:gre:wpaper:2021-43. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Patrice Bougette (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/credcfr.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.