IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cooperating Over Losses and Competing Over Gains: a Social Dilemma Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ispano, Alessandro

    (THEMA - Universite de Cergy-Pontoise)

  • Schwardmann, Peter

    (University of Munich)

Abstract

Evidence from studies in international relations, the politics of reform, collective action and price competition suggests that economic agents in social dilemma situations cooperate more to avoid losses than in the pursuit of gains. To test whether the prospect of losses can induce cooperation, we let experimental subjects play the travelers dilemma in the gain and loss domain. Subjects cooperate substantially more over losses. Furthermore, our results suggest that this treatment effect is best explained by reference-dependent risk preferences and reference-dependent strategic sophistication. We discuss the implications of our results and relate our findings to other experimental games played in the loss domain.

Suggested Citation

  • Ispano, Alessandro & Schwardmann, Peter, 2017. "Cooperating Over Losses and Competing Over Gains: a Social Dilemma Experiment," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 23, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
  • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/23.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. de Quidt, Jonathan, 2014. "Your loss is my gain: a recruitment experiment with framed incentives," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58208, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. repec:cup:apsrev:v:86:y:1992:i:03:p:647-657_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    4. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(523), pages 1243-1259, October.
    5. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    6. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espinosa, María Paz & Rey-Biel, Pedro, 2011. "Travelers’ types," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 25-36.
      • Pablo Brañas-Garza & Maréa Paz & Pedro Rey-Biel, "undated". "Travelers' Types," Working Papers 407, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
      • Pablo Brañas-Garza & María Paz Espinosa & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "Travelers' Types," Post-Print hal-00978260, HAL.
      • Brañas Garza, Pablo & Espinosa Alejos, María Paz & Rey Biel, Pedro, 2010. "Travellers' Types," DFAEII Working Papers 2010-03, University of the Basque Country - Department of Foundations of Economic Analysis II.
    7. Jonathan de Quidt, 2017. "Your Loss is my Gain: A Recruitment Experiment with Framed Incentives," CESifo Working Paper Series 6326, CESifo Group Munich.
    8. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    9. C. Monica Capra & Jacob K Goeree & Rosario Gomez & Charles A Holt, 2002. "Learning and Noisy Equilibrium Behavior in an Experimental Study of Imperfect Price Competition," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(3), pages 613-636, August.
    10. Roland Fryer & Steven Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00591, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Theo Offerman & Jan Potters, 2006. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Induce Collusion? An Experimental Study," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 769-791.
    12. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2002. "Quantal Response Equilibrium and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 247-272, May.
    13. Fosgaard, Toke R. & Hansen, Lars Gårn & Wengström, Erik, 2014. "Understanding the nature of cooperation variability," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 134-143.
    14. Kahn, Shulamit, 1997. "Evidence of Nominal Wage Stickiness from Microdata," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(5), pages 993-1008, December.
    15. Joe Oppenheimer & Stephen Wendel & Norman Frohlich, 2011. "Paradox lost: Explaining and modeling seemingly random individual behavior in social dilemmas," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 165-187, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Rotemberg, Julio J & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "A Supergame-Theoretic Model of Price Wars during Booms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(3), pages 390-407, June.
    18. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2012. "The 11-20 Money Request Game: A Level-k Reasoning Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3561-3573, December.
    19. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
    20. 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.
    21. Christian Rojas, 2012. "The role of demand information and monitoring in tacit collusion," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 78-109, March.
    22. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    23. Bradley J. Ruffle, 2013. "When Do Large Buyers Pay Less? Experimental Evidence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 108-137, March.
    24. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2003. "Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-113, October.
    25. Tilman Becker & Michael Carter & Jörg Naeve, 2005. "Experts Playing the Traveler's Dilemma," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 252/2005, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
    26. C. Monica Capra, 1999. "Anomalous Behavior in a Traveler's Dilemma?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 678-690, June.
    27. Barbara Vis & Kees van Kersbergen, 2007. "Why and how do Political Actors Pursue Risky Reforms?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 153-172, April.
    28. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    29. Mariano Tommasi, 2002. "Crisis, Political Institutions and Policy Reform: It Is Not the Policy, It Is the Polity, Stupid," Working Papers 49, Universidad de San Andres, Departamento de Economia, revised Jun 2004.
    30. Lim, Wooyoung & Matros, Alexander & Turocy, Theodore L., 2014. "Bounded rationality and group size in Tullock contests: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 155-167.
    31. Iturbe-Ormaetxe, Iñigo & Ponti, Giovanni & Tomás, Josefa & Ubeda, Luis, 2011. "Framing effects in public goods: Prospect Theory and experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 439-447, June.
    32. Gérard P. Cachon & Colin F. Camerer, 1996. "Loss-Avoidance and Forward Induction in Experimental Coordination Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 111(1), pages 165-194.
    33. Steve Buchheit & Nick Feltovich, 2011. "Experimental Evidence Of A Sunk‐Cost Paradox: A Study Of Pricing Behavior In Bertrand–Edgeworth Duopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 52(2), pages 317-347, May.
    34. Ariel Rubinstein, 2007. "Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: Response Times Study," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000001011, UCLA Department of Economics.
    35. Cox, Caleb A., 2015. "Decomposing the effects of negative framing in linear public goods games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 63-65.
    36. Basu, Kaushik, 1994. "The Traveler's Dilemma: Paradoxes of Rationality in Game Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 391-395, May.
    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. Kaushik Basu, 2018. "Markets and Manipulation: Time for a Paradigm Shift?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(1), pages 185-205, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Travelers dilemma; loss domain; diminishing sensitivity; strategic sophistication;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk 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:rco:dpaper:23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Benjamin Langer). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.