IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oxf/wpaper/176.html

Perceived Harmony, Similarity and Cooperation in 2 x 2 Games: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel John Zizzo
  • Jonathan H.W. Tan
  • Institute of Microeconomics
  • European University Viadrina

Abstract

Game harmony is a generic game property describing how conflictual or non-conflictual the interests of players are. Simple and general game harmony measures can predict mean cooperation in 2 x 2 games such as the Prisoner`s Dilemma, the Chicken and trust games. Two measures can be simply computed from monetary payoffs; another, the similarity index, can also be justified by theories of similarity-based reasoning. When data from Oxford and Frankfurt-Oder are disaggregated across experiments, countries and learning history, and when the similarity index is a valid measure, parsimonious regressions can explain around half of the variance in mean cooperation rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel John Zizzo & Jonathan H.W. Tan & Institute of Microeconomics & European University Viadrina, 2003. "Perceived Harmony, Similarity and Cooperation in 2 x 2 Games: An Experimental Study," Economics Series Working Papers 176, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:oxf:wpaper:176
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:fc19c362-27fb-4d6d-bbbe-fe1cce27d292
    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. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Wording and gender effects in a Game of Chicken. An explorative experimental study," Working Papers hal-00796708, HAL.
    2. César Mantilla & Zahra Murad, 2022. "Ego-relevance in team production," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Bartke, Simon & Bosworth, Steven J. & Snower, Dennis & Chierchia, Gabriele, 2016. "The influence of induced care and anger motives on behavior, beliefs and perceptions in a public goods game," Kiel Working Papers 2054, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    4. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    5. Alessandra Smerilli, 2012. "We-thinking and vacillation between frames: filling a gap in Bacharach’s theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 539-560, October.
    6. Simon Bartke & Steven J. Bosworth & Dennis J. Snower & Gabriele Chierchia, 2019. "Motives and comprehension in a public goods game with induced emotions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 205-238, March.
    7. David Butler, 2012. "A choice for ‘me’ or for ‘us’? Using we-reasoning to predict cooperation and coordination in games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 53-76, July.
    8. Daniel Zizzo, 2011. "You are not in my boat: common fate and discrimination against outgroup members," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(1), pages 91-103, March.
    9. Smerilli, Alessandra, 2008. "We-thinking and 'double-crossing': frames, reasoning and equilibria," MPRA Paper 11545, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:oxf:wpaper:176. 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: Anne Pouliquen The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Anne Pouliquen to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.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.