IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pie/dsedps/2019-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An experiment on coordination in a modified stag hunt game

Author

Listed:
  • Pietro Guarnieri
  • Tommaso Luzzati
  • Stefano Marchetti

Abstract

The paper experimentally investigates whether adding a dominated strategy changes subjects' decisions in a stag hunt decision context. Specifically, we run two two-periods treatments where respectively 1) the decision makers firstly face the standard stag-hunt matrix and then the modified three-options matrix and 2) the decision makers firstly face the modified three-options matrix and then the standard two-options stag-hunt matrix. Given the circumstance that the added strategy is dominated, standard rationality assumption would predict no changes in participants decisions across periods and treatments. On the contrary, our results show that the exposure to one or the other treatment frames the decision-situation in a different way. Decision makers become less propense to take the risk of "hunting stags" in the modified three-options matrix, after they are firstly exposed to the two-options standard stag-hunt matrix. Vice versa, they appear more propense to change their decision towards the payoff dominant quilibrium, when they are firstly exposed to the modified three-options matrix and then to the two-options standard stag-hunt matrix.

Suggested Citation

  • Pietro Guarnieri & Tommaso Luzzati & Stefano Marchetti, 2019. "An experiment on coordination in a modified stag hunt game," Discussion Papers 2019/246, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:pie:dsedps:2019/246
    Note: ISSN 2039-1854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ec.unipi.it/documents/Ricerca/papers/2019-246.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Giovanna Devetag & Andreas Ortmann, 2007. "When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 331-344, September.
    3. Schmidt, David & Shupp, Robert & Walker, James M. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2003. "Playing safe in coordination games:: the roles of risk dominance, payoff dominance, and history of play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 281-299, February.
    4. Young, H Peyton, 1993. "The Evolution of Conventions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 57-84, January.
    5. Battalio, Raymond & Samuelson, Larry & Van Huyck, John, 2001. "Optimization Incentives and Coordination Failure in Laboratory Stag Hunt Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 749-764, May.
    6. H. Peyton Young, 1996. "The Economics of Convention," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 105-122, Spring.
    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. Friedel Bolle & Jörg Spiller, 2021. "Cooperation against all predictions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 904-924, July.
    2. Giovanna Devetag & Andreas Ortmann, 2007. "When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 331-344, September.
    3. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ruiz-Martos, Maria J., 2020. "Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Frey Vincenz & Corten Rense & Buskens Vincent, 2012. "Equilibrium Selection in Network Coordination Games: An Experimental Study," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, September.
    5. Arno Riedl & Ingrid M. T. Rohde & Martin Strobel, 2016. "Efficient Coordination in Weakest-Link Games," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(2), pages 737-767.
    6. Dal Bó, Pedro & Fréchette, Guillaume R. & Kim, Jeongbin, 2021. "The determinants of efficient behavior in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 352-368.
    7. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Jones, Garett & Weel, Jaap, 2010. "Patience, cognitive skill and coordination in the repeated stag hunt," MPRA Paper 27723, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. John Van Huyck & Ajalavat Viriyavipart & Alexander L. Brown, 2018. "When less information is good enough: experiments with global stag hunt games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 527-548, September.
    9. Mielke, Jahel & Steudle, Gesine A., 2018. "Green Investment and Coordination Failure: An Investors' Perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 88-95.
    10. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Prospect dynamics and loss dominance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 98-124.
    11. Sawa, Ryoji & Wu, Jiabin, 2018. "Reference-dependent preferences, super-dominance and stochastic stability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 96-104.
    12. Ryan Kendall, 2022. "Decomposing coordination failure in stag hunt games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1109-1145, September.
    13. Dugar, Subhasish & Shahriar, Quazi, 2018. "Restricted and free-form cheap-talk and the scope for efficient coordination," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 294-310.
    14. Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2016. "Disentangling Social Capital: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence on Coordination, Networks, and Cooperation," Artefactual Field Experiments 00565, The Field Experiments Website.
    15. Johne Bone & Michalis Drouvelis & Indrajit Ray, 2013. "Coordination in 2 x 2 Games by Following Recommendations from Correlated Equilibria," Discussion Papers 12-04r, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    16. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Omar Al-Ubaydli, 2011. "How Large Looms the Ghost of the Past? State Dependence versus Heterogeneity in Coordination Games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 78(2), pages 273-286, October.
    18. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2014. "Imitation and the role of information in overcoming coordination failures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 397-411.
    19. Siegfried K. Berninghaus & Lora Todorova & Bodo Vogt, 2011. "A Simple Questionnaire Can Change Everything - Are Strategy Choices in Coordination Games Stable?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-057, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    20. Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland & Suetens, Sigrid, 2009. "Naked exclusion: Towards a behavioral approach to exclusive dealing," CEPR Discussion Papers 7303, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    stag hunt; coordination; risk-dominance; risk framing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:pie:dsedps:2019/246. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dspisit.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.