Match!

Increasing Cooperation in Prisoner's Dilemmas by Establishing a Precedent of Efficiency in Coordination Games

Published on Jul 1, 2000in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes2.91
· DOI :10.1006/obhd.2000.2882
Marc Knez11
Estimated H-index: 11
(U of C: University of Chicago),
Colin F. Camerer99
Estimated H-index: 99
(California Institute of Technology)
Cite
Abstract
Coordination games have multiple Nash equilibria (i.e., sets of strategies which are best responses to one another). In weak-link coordination games players choose a number 1–7. Their payoff is increasing in the minimum number (or weakest link) and decreasing in the difference between their number and the minimum. Choosing 7 is an efficient equilibrium because it gives everybody a higher payoff than any other coordinated choice. Higher-payoff equilibria are riskier, however, so the game expresses the tradeoff between group efficiency and personal risk present in many social and organizational settings. We tested whether choosing efficiently in a weak-link game increases cooperative play in a subsequent prisoner's dilemma (PD) game. This cross-game transfer resembles the transfer of cooperative norms in small firms (which are more like coordination games than PDs) as firms grow larger and become like PDs. In two experiments, if a group of players share a history of playing the weak-link game efficiently, that efficiency precedent can transfer to a subsequent PD game, improving the level of cooperativeness. The effect of transfer is much larger in magnitude (increasing cooperation from 15–30% to 71%) than the effects of most variables in previous PD studies. However, the transfer effect depends on descriptive similarity of strategies in the two games, since it largely disappears when the strategies are numbered differently in the weak-link game and the PD.
  • References (43)
  • Citations (104)
Cite
References43
Newest
#1T. K. Ahn (IU: Indiana University Bloomington)H-Index: 20
#2Elinor Ostrom (IU: Indiana University Bloomington)H-Index: 102
Last.James M. Walker (IU: Indiana University Bloomington)H-Index: 43
view all 4 authors...
#1Edward L. Glaeser (Harvard University)H-Index: 94
#2David Laibson (NBER: National Bureau of Economic Research)H-Index: 59
Last.Christine L. Soutter (Harvard University)H-Index: 1
view all 4 authors...
Cited By104
Newest
#1Valerio Capraro (Lond: University of London)H-Index: 15
#2Glorianna Jagfeld (University of Stuttgart)H-Index: 1
Last.Iris van de Pol (UvA: University of Amsterdam)H-Index: 2
view all 5 authors...
#1Janice M. Payan (UNC: University of Northern Colorado)H-Index: 13
#2Carmen Padín Fabeiro (University of Vigo)H-Index: 8
Last.Göran Svensson (Oslo School of Management)H-Index: 34
view all 4 authors...
#1Timothy N. Cason (Purdue University)H-Index: 34
#2Sau-Him Paul Lau (HKU: University of Hong Kong)H-Index: 12
Last.Vai-Lam Mui (Monash University)H-Index: 12
view all 3 authors...
#1Claus Ghesla (EPFL: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne)H-Index: 1
#2Manuel Grieder (EPFL: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne)H-Index: 1
Last.Jan Schmitz (EPFL: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne)H-Index: 3
view all 3 authors...
View next paperTacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure