IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The Minority Game Unpacked: Coordination and Competition in a Team-based Experiment

  • Giovanna Devetag
  • Francesca Pancotto
  • Thomas Brenner

In minority games, players in a group must decide at each round which of two available options to choose, knowing that only subjects who picked the minority op- tion obtain a positive reward. Previous experiments on the minority and similar congestion games have shown that players interacting repeatedly are remarkably able to coordinate eciently, despite not conforming to Nash equilibrium behavior. We conduct an experiment on a minority-of-three game in which each player is a team composed by three subjects. Each team can freely discuss its strategies in the game and decisions must be made via a majority rule. Team discussions are recorded and their content analyzed to detect evidence of strategy co-evolution among teams playing together. Our main results of team discussion analysis show no evidence sup- porting the mixed strategy Nash equilibrium solution, and support a low-rationality, backward-looking approach to model behavior in the game, more consistent with reinforcement learning models than with belief-based models. Showing level-2 ratio- nality (i.e., reasoning about others' beliefs) is positively and signicantly correlated with higher than average earnings in the game, showing that a mildly sophisticated approach pays off. In addition, teams that are more successful tend to become more egocentric over time, paying more attention to their own past successes than to the behavior of other teams. Finally, we nd evidence of mutual adaptation over time, as teams that are more strategic (i.e., they pay more attention to other teams' moves) induce competing teams to be more egocentric instead. Our results contribute to the understanding of coordination dynamics resting on heterogeneity and co-evolution of decision rules rather than on conformity to equilibrium behavior. In addition, they provide support at the decision process level to the validity of modeling behavior using low-rationality reinforcement learning models.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.lem.sssup.it/WPLem/files/2011-18.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy in its series LEM Papers Series with number 2011/18.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 22 Aug 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2011/18
Contact details of provider: Postal: Piazza dei Martiri della Liberta, 33, 56127 Pisa
Phone: +39-50-883343
Fax: +39-50-883344
Web page: http://www.lem.sssup.it/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Miguel Costa-Gomes & Vincent P. Crawford & Bruno Broseta, . "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games:An Experimental Study," Discussion Papers 00/45, Department of Economics, University of York.
  2. John Duffy & Ed Hopkins, 2010. "Learning, Information and Sorting in Market Entry Games: Theory and Evidence," Levine's Working Paper Archive 506439000000000355, David K. Levine.
  3. Maria Giovanna Devetag & Massimo Warglien, 2002. "Games and phone numbers: do short term memory bounds affect strategic behavior?," CEEL Working Papers 0211, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
  4. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898, August.
  5. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-26, December.
  6. Rami Zwick & Amnon Rapoport, 1999. "Tacit Coordination in a Decentralized Market Entry Game with Fixed Capacity," Experimental 9903001, EconWPA.
  7. Kets, W. & Voorneveld, M., 2007. "Congestion, Equilibrium and Learning : The Minority Game," Discussion Paper 2007-61, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  8. Thorsten Chmura & Werner Güth & Thomas Pitz & Anthony Ziegelmeyer, 2010. "The Minority of Three-Game: An Experimental and Theoretical Analysis," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-071, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
  9. Kets, W., 2007. "The Minority Game : An Economics Perspective," Discussion Paper 2007-53, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  10. Amnon Rapoport & Darryl A. Seale & Ido Erev & James A. Sundali, 1998. "Equilibrium Play in Large Group Market Entry Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 119-141, January.
  11. Erev, Ido & Rapoport, Amnon, 1998. "Coordination, "Magic," and Reinforcement Learning in a Market Entry Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 146-175, May.
  12. Challet, Damien & Zhang, Yi-Cheng, 1998. "On the minority game: Analytical and numerical studies," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 256(3), pages 514-532.
  13. Eyal Winter & Amnon Rapoport & Darryl A. Seale, 2000. "An experimental study of coordination and learning in iterated two-market entry games," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 661-687.
  14. Reinhard Selten & Michael Schreckenberg & Thomas Pitz & Thorsten Chmura & Sebastian Kube, 2002. "Experiments and Simulations on Day-to-Day Route Choice-Behaviour," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse35_2002, University of Bonn, Germany.
  15. Selten, R. & Chmura, T. & Pitz, T. & Kube, S. & Schreckenberg, M., 2007. "Commuters route choice behaviour," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 394-406, February.
  16. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2004. "Regular quantal response equilibrium," Working Papers 1203, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  17. Challet, D. & Zhang, Y.-C., 1997. "Emergence of cooperation and organization in an evolutionary game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 407-418.
  18. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-31, March.
  19. Meyer, Donald J, et al, 1992. "History's Role in Coordinating Decentralized Allocation Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(2), pages 292-316, April.
  20. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E, 1998. "Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 848-81, September.
  21. Giulio Bottazzi & Giovanna Devetag, 2007. "Competition and coordination in experimental minority games," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 241-275, June.
  22. Ochs, Jack, 1990. "The Coordination Problem in Decentralized Markets: An Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 545-59, May.
  23. Willemien Kets, 2012. "Learning With Fixed Rules: The Minority Game," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 865-878, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssa:lemwps:2011/18. 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: ()

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.