IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/479.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do We Talk Too Much?

Author

Listed:
  • Emanuel Vespa

    (UC San Diego)

  • Georg Weizsäcker

    (HU Berlin)

Abstract

We consider the trade-off between talking and listening in a laboratory experiment where two team members need to coordinate on the use of an information channel. Each team member indicates their preference to “talk” and share her own information with her teammate, or to “listen” and obtain knowledge of the teammate’s information. The nature of the information varies across treatments. For stylized urns-and-balls treatments, we formalize a version of the “hard-easy effect” of over- and under-confidence: players talk more in situations where information is relatively precise – not only for the talker but also for the listener. Indeed we find that a more precise information structure induces a higher talking frequency, with a difference of 5 percentage points, relative to a baseline of 48 percent. The game-theoretic equilibrium, with rational expectations, predicts no such treatment effect. In treatments where information arises from real-world contexts, the hard-easy effect on the talking frequency is even stronger, at about 13 percentage points, relative to a baseline of about 38 percent.

Suggested Citation

  • Emanuel Vespa & Georg Weizsäcker, 2023. "Do We Talk Too Much?," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 479, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
  • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/479.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    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. Buckert, Magdalena & Oechssler, Jörg & Schwieren, Christiane, 2017. "Imitation under stress," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 252-266.
    2. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    3. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    4. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    5. Bouton, Laurent & Castanheira, Micael & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol, 2016. "Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 114-128.
    6. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2020. "Agenda Control And Reciprocity In Sequential Voting Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(4), pages 1813-1829, October.
    7. Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2022. "Measuring "Group Cohesion" to Reveal the Power of Social Relationships in Team Production," CESifo Working Paper Series 9936, CESifo.
    8. Francesco Fallucchi & Jan Niederreiter & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Learning and dropout in contests: an experimental approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 245-278, March.
    9. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    10. Rizzolli, Matteo & Tremewan, James, 2018. "Hard labor in the lab: Deterrence, non-monetary sanctions, and severe procedures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 107-121.
    11. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    12. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    13. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Second opinions in markets for expert services: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 106-125.
    14. Julien Jacob & Eve-Angéline Lambert & Mathieu Lefebvre & Sarah Driessche, 2023. "Information disclosure under liability: an experiment on public bads," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(1), pages 155-197, July.
    15. Auerbach, Jan U. & Fonseca, Miguel A., 2020. "Preordered service in contract enforcement," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 130-149.
    16. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.
    17. Dulleck, Uwe & Howell, Nicola J. & Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Mason, Rosalind F., 2018. "Insights into the Impact of Bankruptcy's Public Record on Entrepreneurial Activity: Evidence from Economic Experiments," EconStor Preprints 180667, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Bayer, Ralph-C & Ke, Changxia, 2018. "What causes rockets and feathers? An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 223-237.
    19. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2022. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-making," Discussion Papers 2022/8, Free University Berlin, School of Business & Economics.
    20. Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Moral awareness polarizes people’s fairness judgments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 339-364, August.

    More about this item

    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:479. 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: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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.