IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01681048.html

Overcoming coordination failure in a critical mass game: Strategic motives and action disclosure

Author

Listed:
  • Aidas Masiliūnas

    (GREQAM - Groupement de Recherche en Économie Quantitative d'Aix-Marseille - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

We study whether coordination failure is more often overcome if players can disclose their actions at a lower cost. In an experiment subjects first choose their action and then choose whether to disclose this action to other group members, and disclosure costs are varied between treatments. We find that no group overcomes coordination failure when action disclosure costs are high, but half of the groups do so when the costs are low. Simulations with a belief learning model can predict which groups will overcome coordination failure, but only if it is assumed that players are either farsighted, risk-seeking or pro-social. To distinguish between these explanations we collected additional data on individual preferences and the degree of farsightedness. We find that in the low cost treatment players classified as more farsighted more often deviate from an inefficient convention and disclose this action, while the effect of risk and social preferences is not significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Aidas Masiliūnas, 2017. "Overcoming coordination failure in a critical mass game: Strategic motives and action disclosure," Post-Print hal-01681048, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01681048
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.04.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. 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.
    2. Masiliūnas, Aidas, 2019. "Overcoming inefficient lock-in in coordination games with sophisticated and myopic players," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Michal Krol & Magdalena Ewa Krol, 2020. "On the strategic value of ‘shooting yourself in the foot’: an experimental study of burning money," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(1), pages 23-45, March.
    4. Xiao Han & Yun Yu & Bin Jia & Zi‐You Gao & Rui Jiang & H. Michael Zhang, 2021. "Coordination Behavior in Mode Choice: Laboratory Study of Equilibrium Transformation and Selection," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3635-3656, October.
    5. Hubert Janos Kiss & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia, 2018. "Who runs first to the bank?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1826, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    6. David Danz & Lise Vesterlund & Alistair J. Wilson, 2020. "Belief Elicitation: Limiting Truth Telling with Information on Incentives," NBER Working Papers 27327, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Kiss, Hubert János & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Rosa-Garcia, Alfonso, 2022. "Who withdraws first? Line formation during bank runs," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:hal:journl:hal-01681048. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.