IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jmp/jm2016/pkl168.html

Identifying the Reasons for Coordination Failure in a Laboratory Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Külpmann
  • Davit Khantadze

Abstract

In this paper, we use a laboratory experiment to investigate the effect of absence of common knowledge on the outcomes of coordination games. We introduce cognitive types into a pure coordination game in which there is no common knowledge about the distribution of cognitive types. In our experiment, around 76% of the subjects managed to coordinate on the payoff-dominant equilibrium despite the absence of common knowledge. However, around 9% of the players had first-order beliefs that lead to coordination failure and another 9% exhibited coordination failure due to higher-order beliefs. Furthermore, we compare our results with predictions of different models of higher-order beliefs, commonly used in the literature.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Külpmann & Davit Khantadze, 2016. "Identifying the Reasons for Coordination Failure in a Laboratory Experiment," 2016 Papers pkl168, Job Market Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:jmp:jm2016:pkl168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ideas.repec.org/jmp/2016/pkl168.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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

    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:jmp:jm2016:pkl168. 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: RePEc Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ideas.repec.org/jmp.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.