IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tas/wpaper/22660.html

Turn-taking in finitely repeated symmetric games: experimental evidence

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the emergence of turn taking in three finitely repeated games: (i) an allocation game, (ii) a low conflict dominant strategy equilibrium (DSE) game and (iii) a high conflict DSE game in an experimental setting. The experiments are run with and without cheap talk communication between participants. In order to develop experimental conjectures and interpret results we develop a theoretical analysis which incorporates the presence of three types of participant: (i) cooperative, (ii) competitive and (iii) self seeking. Based on our theoretical analysis we hypothesize that turn taking may be exhibited experimentally in all three of the games we study when some participants have cooperative preferences. We find experimentally that turn taking emerges in all treatments, and its incidence is qualitatively similar in the allocation and DSE games. While cheap talk increased the rate of cooperative behavior and eliminated competitive behaviour, it had at most a small effect on self seeking behavior. The degree of conflict also had a small effect on the prevalence of turn taking. We observed, using a repeated matching experiment for the high conflict DSE games, that a large majority of participants behavior can be attributed to one of the three types.

Suggested Citation

  • Silby, Hugh & Tisdell, John & Evans, Shaun, 2015. "Turn-taking in finitely repeated symmetric games: experimental evidence," Working Papers 2015-03, University of Tasmania, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:tas:wpaper:22660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/22660/1/2015-03_Sibly.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bhaskar, V., 2000. "Egalitarianism and Efficiency in Repeated Symmetric Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 247-262, August.
    2. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    3. Timothy Cason & Sau-Him Lau & Vai-Lam Mui, 2013. "Learning, teaching, and turn taking in the repeated assignment game," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 335-357, October.
    4. Charness, Gary & Grosskopf, Brit, 2001. "Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 301-328, July.
    5. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    6. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
    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. Kaplan, Todd R. & Ruffle, Bradley J. & Shtudiner, Zeev, 2018. "Cooperation through coordination in two stages," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 206-219.
    2. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2017. "It's your turn: experiments with three-player public good games," MPRA Paper 76565, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth, 2018. "Asymmetric voluntary cooperation: a repeated sequential best-shot experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 873-891, September.
    4. Xue, Lian & Sitzia, Stefania & Turocy, Theodore L., 2023. "Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    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. Sibly, Hugh & Tisdell, John, 2018. "Cooperation and turn taking in finitely-repeated prisoners' dilemmas: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 49-56.
    2. Kloosterman, Andrew & Mago, Shakun, 2023. "The infinitely repeated volunteer's dilemma: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 812-832.
    3. Tjaša Bjedov & Thierry Madiès & Marie Claire Villeval, 2016. "Communication And Coordination In A Two-Stage Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1519-1540, July.
    4. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Poulsen, Anders U. & Roos, Michael W.M., 2017. "Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 687-699.
    5. He, Simin & Zou, Xinlu, 2024. "Public goods provision in a network formation game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 104-131.
    6. Zhao, Shuchen, 2021. "Taking turns in continuous time," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 257-279.
    7. Engelmann, Dirk & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2007. "An experimental test of strategic trade policy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 144-156, September.
    8. Xue, Lian & Sitzia, Stefania & Turocy, Theodore L., 2023. "Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. He, Simin & Wu, Jiabin, 2020. "Compromise and coordination: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 216-233.
    10. Lisa Bruttel & Werner Güth, 2018. "Asymmetric voluntary cooperation: a repeated sequential best-shot experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 873-891, September.
    11. Comeig, Irene & Klaser, Klaudijo & Pinar, Lucía D., 2022. "The paradox of (Inter)net neutrality: An experiment on ex-ante antitrust regulation✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    12. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Mago, Shakun D., 2019. "Communication and side payments in a duopoly with private costs: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 157-184.
    13. Lian Xue & Stefania Sitzia & Theodore L. Turocy, 2022. "Concord and contention in a dynamic unstructured bargaining experiment with costly conflict," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 22-02, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    14. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2019. "Path of intertemporal cooperation and limits to turn-taking behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 21-36.
    15. Haucap, Justus & Heldman, Christina & Rau, Holger A., 2024. "Gender and cooperation in the presence of negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 148-169.
    16. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2017. "It's your turn: experiments with three-player public good games," MPRA Paper 76565, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Dijkstra, Peter T., 2015. "Price leadership and unequal market sharing: Collusion in experimental markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 80-97.
    18. Blume, Andreas & Franco, April Mitchell, 2007. "Decentralized learning from failure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 504-523, March.
    19. 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.
    20. Markus C. Arnold & Eva Ponick, 2006. "Kommunikation im Groves-Mechanismus — Ergebnisse eines Laborexperiments," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 89-120, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:tas:wpaper:22660. 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: Oscar Pavlov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dutasau.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.