When best-replies are not in equilibrium: understanding cooperative behaviour
To understand cooperative behaviour in social-dilemma experiments, we need to understand the game participants play not only in monetary but in preference terms. Does a Nash-prediction based on participants' actual preferences describe their behaviour in a public-good experiment well? And if not, where does the observed behaviour diverge from the prediction? This study provides an environment which allows to answer these questions: when making their contribution decision, participants are informed about their co-playersï¿½ priorly-elicited conditional contribution preferences. This induces common knowledge of preferences and thereby leads to direct experimental control over the game participants play. Results show that most people play best-responses to their beliefs. At the same time, beliefs in a third of the cases do not correspond to an equilibrium prediction that is based on the elicited conditional-cooperation preferences. Moreover, more often than not, beliefs are empirically inaccurate. This holds true even in a treatment that gives participants the option to look up the set of equilibria of their game.
|Date of creation:||2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Hauptstr. 90, CH-8280 Kreuzlingen 2|
Phone: +41-71-677 05 10
Fax: +41-71-677 05 11
Web page: http://www.twi-kreuzlingen.ch/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- M. Rabin, 2001.
"Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
511, David K. Levine.
- Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
- Matthew Rabin., 1992. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," Economics Working Papers 92-199, University of California at Berkeley.
- Andreas Nicklisch & Irenaeus Wolff, 2011.
"On the Nature of Reciprocity: Evidence from the Ultimatum Reciprocity Measure,"
TWI Research Paper Series
65, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universitï¿½t Konstanz.
- Nicklisch, Andreas & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2012. "On the nature of reciprocity: Evidence from the ultimatum reciprocity measure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 892-905.
- Andreas Nicklisch & Irenaeus Wolff, 2012. "On the Nature of Reciprocity: Evidence from the Ultimatum Reciprocity Measure," TWI Research Paper Series 79, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universitï¿½t Konstanz.
- Andreas Nicklisch & Irenaeus Wolff, 2012. "On the Nature of Reciprocity: Evidence from the Ultimatum Reciprocity Measure," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-27, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
- David K Levine, 1997.
"Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
2047, David K. Levine.
- Tilman Klumpp, 2012. "Finitely Repeated Voluntary Provision of a Public Good," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(4), pages 547-572, 08.
- Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982.
"Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
- David Kreps & Paul Milgrom & John Roberts & Bob Wilson, 2010. "Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma," Levine's Working Paper Archive 239, David K. Levine.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:twi:respas:0088. 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: (Gregor Govtvan)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.