IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/scp/wpaper/06-60.html

The Compromise Game: Two-sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Juan D. Carrillo

    (Department of Economics, University of Southern California)

  • Thomas R. Palfrey

    (The Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology)

Abstract

We analyze a game of two-sided private information characterized by extreme adverse selection, and study a special case in the laboratory. Each player has a privately known "strength" and can decide to fight or compromise. If either chooses to fight, there is a conflict; the stronger player receives a high payoff and the weaker player receives a low payoff. If both choose to compromise, conflict is avoided and each receives an intermediate payoff. The only equilibrium in both the sequential and simultaneous versions of the game is for players to always fight, independent of their own strength. In our experiment, we observe among other things (i) frequent compromise, (ii) little evidence of learning, and (iii) different behavior between first, second and simultaneous movers. We explore several models in an attempt to understand the reasons underlying these anomalous choices, including quantal response equilibrium, cognitive hierarchy, and cursed equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan D. Carrillo & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2006. "The Compromise Game: Two-sided Adverse Selection in the Laboratory," IEPR Working Papers 06.60, Institute of Economic Policy Research (IEPR).
    • Handle: RePEc:scp:wpaper:06-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Castro, Manuel, 2017. "Second-price common value auctions with uncertainty, private and public information: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 28-40.
    3. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Sachdeva, Ashish, 2018. "The path to equilibrium in sequential and simultaneous games: A mousetracking study," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 246-274.
    4. Evan Friedman & Duarte Gonc{c}alves, 2023. "Quantal Response Equilibrium with a Continuum of Types: Characterization and Nonparametric Identification," Papers 2307.08011, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    5. Major, Iván, 2014. "Ha elfogy a bizalom... Kialakítható-e optimális mechanizmus kétoldalú aszimmetrikus információ esetén? [When confidence evaporates&. Does optimal mechanism design exist under doubly asymmetric information?]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 148-165.
    6. Joao Correia-da-Silva, 2013. "Impossibility of market division with two-sided private information about production costs," FEP Working Papers 490, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    7. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "Strategic Thinking," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000001148, David K. Levine.
    8. Meng-Jhang Fong & Po-Hsuan Lin & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2023. "Cursed Sequential Equilibrium," Papers 2301.11971, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    9. Evan M. Calford & Timothy N. Cason, 2024. "Contingent Reasoning and Dynamic Public Goods Provision," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 236-266, May.
    10. van Leeuwen, Boris & Offerman, Theo & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2018. "Fight or Flight : Endogenous Timing in Conflicts," Discussion Paper 2018-052, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle & Castro, Manuel, 2010. "The nature of information and its effect on bidding behavior: laboratory evidence in a common value auction," CEPR Discussion Papers 7848, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Chong, Juin-Kuan & Ho, Teck-Hua & Camerer, Colin, 2016. "A generalized cognitive hierarchy model of games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 257-274.
    13. Carrillo, Juan D. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2011. "No trade," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 66-87, January.
    14. Olivier Compte, 2023. "Endogenous Barriers to Learning," Papers 2306.16904, arXiv.org, revised May 2025.
    15. Nichole Szembrot, 2018. "Experimental study of cursed equilibrium in a signaling game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 257-291, June.
    16. Camerer, Colin & Nunnari, Salvatore & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2016. "Quantal response and nonequilibrium beliefs explain overbidding in maximum-value auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 243-263.
    17. Henry Penikas & Yulia Titova, 2012. "Modeling Policy Response to Global Systemically Important Banks Regulation," HSE Working papers WP BRP 02/FE/2012, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    18. Carrillo, Juan & Camerer, Colin & Brocas, Isabelle & Wang, Stephanie W., 2009. "Measuring attention and strategic behavior in games with private information," CEPR Discussion Papers 7529, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Major, Iván, 2013. "When trust fades...: Can optimal mechanisms for policy decisions always be designed?," 24th European Regional ITS Conference, Florence 2013 88522, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Olivier Bochet & Jacopo Magnani, 2021. "Limited Strategic Thinking and the Cursed Match," Working Papers 20210071, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Sep 2021.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:scp:wpaper:06-60. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ieuscus.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.