IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hae/wpaper/2011-9.html

Payment schemes in random-termination experimental games

Author

Listed:
  • Katerina Sherstyuk

    (Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa)

  • Nori Tarui

    (Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa and University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization)

  • Majah-Leah Ravago

    (Department of Economics, University of Hawaii at Manoa)

  • Tatsuyoshi Saijo

    (Osaka University)

Abstract

We consider payment schemes in experiments that model infinite-horizon games by using random termination. We compare paying subjects cumulatively for all periods of the game; with paying subjects for the last period only; with paying for one of the periods, chosen randomly. Theoretically, assuming expected utility maximization and risk neutrality, both the cumulative and the last-period payment schemes induce preferences that are equivalent to maximizing the discounted sum of utilities. The last-period payment is also robust under different attitudes towards risk. In comparison, paying subjects for one of the periods chosen randomly creates a present-period bias. Experimentally, we find that the cumulative payment appears the best in inducing long-sighted behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Katerina Sherstyuk & Nori Tarui & Majah-Leah Ravago & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2011. "Payment schemes in random-termination experimental games," Working Papers 2011-9, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    • Handle: RePEc:hae:wpaper:2011-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://uhero.hawaii.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/WP_2011-9.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles a., 1993. "Experimental economics: Methods, problems and promise," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 8(2), pages 179-212.
    2. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    3. John Hey & Jinkwon Lee, 2005. "Do Subjects Separate (or Are They Sophisticated)?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(3), pages 233-265, September.
    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. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, December.
    6. Offerman, Theo & Potters, Jan & Verbon, Harrie A. A., 2001. "Cooperation in an Overlapping Generations Experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 264-275, August.
    7. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    8. Dutta, Prajit K. & Radner, Roy, 2009. "A strategic analysis of global warming: Theory and some numbers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 187-209, August.
    9. Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1991. "Does the Random-Lottery Incentive System Elicit True Preferences? An Experimental Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 971-978, September.
    10. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    11. Cox, James C., 2010. "Some issues of methods, theories, and experimental designs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 24-28, January.
    12. Robin Cubitt & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1998. "On the Validity of the Random Lottery Incentive System," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(2), pages 115-131, September.
    13. Pedro Dal Bó, 2005. "Cooperation under the Shadow of the Future: Experimental Evidence from Infinitely Repeated Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1591-1604, December.
    14. Yan Chen & Sherry Xin Li, 2009. "Group Identity and Social Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(1), pages 431-457, March.
    15. Holt, Charles A, 1986. "Preference Reversals and the Independence Axiom," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 508-515, June.
    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. Katerina Sherstyuk & Nori Tarui & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2013. "Payment schemes in infinite-horizon experimental games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-153, March.
    2. Hample, Kelsey C, 2020. "Experimental methodology: Assigning pro-social groups in the lab," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Masaki Aoyagi & V. Bhaskar & Guillaume R. Fréchette, 2019. "The Impact of Monitoring in Infinitely Repeated Games: Perfect, Public, and Private," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-43, February.

    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. Katerina Sherstyuk & Nori Tarui & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2013. "Payment schemes in infinite-horizon experimental games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 125-153, March.
    2. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    3. Yi Li, 2021. "The ABC mechanism: an incentive compatible payoff mechanism for elicitation of outcome and probability transformations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1019-1046, September.
    4. Yaron Azrieli & Christopher P. Chambers & Paul J. Healy, 2018. "Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 126(4), pages 1472-1503.
    5. Florian H. Schneider & Martin Schonger, 2019. "An Experimental Test of the Anscombe–Aumann Monotonicity Axiom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1667-1677, April.
    6. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Risk Preferences and the Role of Emotions," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(338), pages 305-328, April.
    7. Ulrich Schmidt & Christian Seidl, 2014. "Reconsidering the common ratio effect: the roles of compound independence, reduction, and coalescing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(3), pages 323-339, October.
    8. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Halladay, Brianna, 2016. "Experimental methods: Pay one or pay all," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 141-150.
    9. Victor H. Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2019. "Contracting Probability Distortions," Vienna Economics Papers vie1901, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    10. Fiore, Annamaria, 2009. "Experimental Economics: Some Methodological Notes," MPRA Paper 12498, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Victor H. Gonzalez-Jimenez, 2019. "Contracting Probability Distortions," Vienna Economics Papers 1901, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    12. Brokesova, Zuzana & Deck, Cary & Peliova, Jana, 2017. "Comparing a risky choice in the field and across lab procedures," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 203-212.
    13. André Palma & Nathalie Picard & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2011. "Individual and couple decision behavior under risk: evidence on the dynamics of power balance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 45-64, January.
    14. Kirchler, Michael & Lindner, Florian & Weitzel, Utz, 2020. "Delegated investment decisions and rankings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    15. Giuseppe Attanasi & Christian Gollier & Aldo Montesano & Noemi Pace, 2014. "Eliciting ambiguity aversion in unknown and in compound lotteries: a smooth ambiguity model experimental study," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 485-530, December.
    16. Herranz-Zarzoso, Noemí & Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, Ainhoa, 2020. "Framing and repetition effects on risky choices: A behavioural approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    17. Jinkwon Lee, 2007. "Repetition And Financial Incentives In Economics Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 628-681, July.
    18. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ponti, Giovanni, 2017. "Social motives vs social influence: An experiment on interdependent time preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 177-194.
    19. Xu, Xue, 2018. "Experiments on cooperation, institutions, and social preferences," Other publications TiSEM d3cf4dba-b0f3-4643-a267-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Michael Kirchler & Florian Lindner & Utz Weitzel, 2018. "Delegated Decision Making and Social Competition in the Finance Industry," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2018_08, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary 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:hae:wpaper:2011-9. 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: UHERO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/heuhius.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.