An Experimental Study of Uncertainty in Coordination Games

Date: 2015-09-23
By: Ioannou, Christos A.
Makris, Miltiadis
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:stn:sotoec:1506&r=net
Global games and Poisson games have been proposed to address equilibrium indeterminacy in Coordination games. The former assume that agents face idiosyncratic uncertainty about economic fundamentals to capture disperse information, whereas the latter model the number of actual players as a Poisson random variable to capture population uncertainty in large games. Given that their predictions differ, it is imperative to understand which type of uncertainty drives empirical behavior in macroeconomic environments with strategic complementarities. Recent experimental literature finds mixed results on whether subjects’ behavior is similar in Global and Common Knowledge Coordination games, and hence on whether idiosyncratic uncertainty about economic fundamentals is an important determinant of subjects’ behavior. Poisson Coordination games have not been investigated experimentally. We fill this gap. Our findings suggest that uncertainty about the number of actual players may influence subjects’ behavior. Crucially, such behavior is consistent with the theoretical prediction of Poisson Coordination games.
廣告

Collective choices under ambiguity

Date: 2014-08-19
By: M. Vittoria Levati (University of Verona and Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena)
Stefan Napel (University of Bayreuth)
Ivan Soraperra (University of Verona)
URL: http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2014-019&r=net
We investigate experimentally whether collective choice matters for individual attitudes to ambiguity. We consider a two-urn Ellsberg experiment: one urn offers a 45% chance of winning a fixed monetary prize, the other an ambiguous chance. Participants choose either individually or in groups of three. Group decision rules vary. In one treatment the collective choice is taken by majority; in another it is dictated by two group members; in the third it is dictated by a single group member. We observe high proportions of ambiguity averse choices in both individual and collective decision making. Although a majority of participants display consistent ambiguity attitudes across their decisions, collective choice tends to foster ambiguity aversion, especially if the decision rule assigns asymmetric responsibilities to group members. Previous participation in laboratory experiments may miti- gate this.
Keywords: Ambiguity aversion, majority voting, dictatorship

Just Luck: An Experimental Study of Risk-Taking and Fairness

Cappelen, Alexander W., James Konow, Erik Ø. Sørensen, and Bertil Tungodden. 2013. “Just Luck: An Experimental Study of Risk-Taking and Fairness." American Economic Review, 103(4): 1398-1413. DOI: 10.1257/aer.103.4.1398; Online Appendix (307.82 KB) | Download Data Set (215.97 KB)

Abstract

Choices involving risk significantly affect the distribution of income and wealth in society. This paper reports the results of the first experiment, to our knowledge, to study fairness views about risktaking, specifically whether such views are based chiefly on ex ante opportunities or on ex post outcomes. We find that, even though many participants focus exclusively on ex ante opportunities, most favor some redistribution ex post. Many participants also make a distinction between ex post inequalities that reflect differences in luck and ex post inequalities that reflect differences in choices. These findings apply to both stakeholders and impartial spectators.

Production economics in the presence of risk

Shankar, S. (2012). Production economics in the presence of risk*. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 56(4), 597-620.  Wiley;

==original Abstract==

This paper provides an overview of the literature on production under the influence of risk. Various specifications of stochastic production function such as models with additive and multiplicative uncertainty, Just and Pope model, output-cubical, state-allocable and state-general models are discussed. Further, criteria determining optimal producer behaviour are derived for deterministic production technology and for various kinds of state-contingent technologies such as output-cubical, state-specific, state-allocable and state-general technologies. Finally, a brief discussion is presented about the drawbacks of each of these specifications of technology.

References

  • Arrow, K.J. (1953). Le des valeurs boursiers pour la repartition la meillure des risques. Technical report, Cahiers du Seminair d’Economie, Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris.
  • Briec, W. and Cavaignac, L. (2009). An extension of the multi-output statecontingent production model, Journal of Economic Theory 39, 43–64.
  • Chambers, R.G. and Quiggin, J. (1998). Cost functions and duality for stochastic technologies, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(2), 288–295.
  • Chambers, R.G. and Quiggin, J. (2000). Uncertainty, Production, Choice and Agency: The State-Contingent Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Chambers, R.G. and Quiggin, J. (2002). The state-contingent properties of stochastic production functions, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(2), 513–526.
    Direct Link:
  • Chambers, R.G. and Quiggin, J. (2003). Price stabilization and the risk-averse firm, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2), 336–347.
    Direct Link:
  • Chavas, J.-P. (2008). A cost approach to economic analysis under state-contingent production uncertainty, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2), 435–446.
    Direct Link:
  • Debreu, G. (1952). A social equilibrium existence theorem, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (38), 886–893.
  • Hirshleifer, J. and Riley, J.G. (1992). The Analytics of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Jaramillo, P.E., Useche, P., Barham, B.L. and Foltz, J.D. (2010). The state contingent approach to farmers’ valuation and adoption of new biotech crops: Nitrogen-fertilizer and drought tolerance traits. July 2010 Annual Meeting. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, Denver, CO.
  • Just, R.E. (2003). Risk research in agricultural economics: opportunities and challenges for the next twenty-five years, Agricultural Systems 75, 123–159.
  • Just, R.E. and Pope, R.D. (1978). Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications, Journal of Econometrics 7(1), 67–86.
  • Kumbhakar, S.C. (2002). Specification and estimation of production risk, risk preferences and technical efficiency, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(1), 8–22.
    Direct Link:
  • Love, H.A. and Buccola, S.T. (1991). Joint risk preference-technology estimation with a primal system, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(3), 765–774.
  • Love, H.A. and Buccola, S.T. (1999). Joint risk preference-technology estimation with a primal system: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(1), 245–247.
  • Nauges, C., O’Donnell, C. and Quiggin, J. (2009). Uncertainty and technical efficiency in finnish agriculture. Number (53rd) Conference, Cairns, Australia. Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  • O’Donnell, C.J. and Griffiths, W.E. (2006). Estimating state-contingent production frontiers, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88(1), 249–266.
    Direct Link:
  • O’Donnell, C.J., Chambers, R.G. and Quiggin, J. (2010). Efficiency analysis in the presence of uncertainty, Journal of Productivity Analysis 33, 1–17.
  • Quiggin, J. and Chambers, R.G. (1998). Risk premiums and benefit measures for generalized-expected-utility theories, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 17(2), 121–137.
  • Rasmussen, S. (2003). Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. the state-contingent approach, The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47(4), 447–476.
  • Rasmussen, S. (2004). Optimizing production under uncertainty: generalisation of the state-contingent approach and comparison of methods for empirical application. Unit of Economics Working papers 24184, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Food and Resource Economic Institute.
  • Sandmo, A. (1971). On the theory of the competitive firm under price uncertainty, The American Economic Review 61(1), 65–73.
  • Shephard, R.W. (1953). Cost and Production Functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Shephard, R.W. (1970). Theory of Cost and Production Functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Yaari, M.E. (1969). Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses, Journal of Economic Theory 1(3), 315–329.

Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions

Gary Charness and Matthias Sutter (2012) “Groups Make Better Self-Interested Decisions." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3): 157-76. DOI: 10.1257/jep.26.3.157; URL: AEAWeb. PDF1; PDF2

==Notes by yinung==

集體決策和個人決策之差異:

從賽局理論的角度看, 集體決策較個人決策來得理性 (rational), 因其可避免認知錯誤與限制。

不過集體決策也因此不見得會提高社會福利 (集體決策比較 self-interest)

待研究問題:

the optimal size of the group ( A useful starting point here is Forsyth’s (2006) work)

==original Abstract==

In this paper, we describe what economists have learned about differences between group and individual decision-making. This literature is still young, and in this paper, we will mostly draw on experimental work (mainly in the laboratory) that has compared individual decision-making to group decision-making, and to individual decision-making in situations with salient group membership. The bottom line emerging from economic research on group decision-making is that groups are more likely to make choices that follow standard game-theoretic predictions, while individuals are more likely to be influenced by biases, cognitive limitations, and social considerations. In this sense, groups are generally less “behavioral" than individuals. An immediate implication of this result is that individual decisions in isolation cannot necessarily be assumed to be good predictors of the decisions made by groups. More broadly, the evidence casts doubts on traditional approaches that model economic behavior as if individuals were making decisions in isolation.

==References==

  • Forsyth, Donelson R. 2006. Group Dynamics, 4th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
  • Camerer, Colin F.  2003.  Behavioural Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
  • Charness, Gary, Edi Karni, and Dan Levin. 2007. “Individual and Group Decision Making under Risk: An Experimental Study of Bayesian Updating and Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35(2): 129–48.
  • Charness, Gary, Edi Karni, and Dan Levin. 2010. “On the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment: New Experimental Evidence Regarding Linda.” Games and Economic Behavior 68(2): 551–56.
  • Charness, Gary, and Dan Levin. 2005. “When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect.” American Economic Review 95(4): 1300–1309.
  • Charness, Gary, Luca Rigotti, and Aldo  Rustichini. 2007. “Individual Behavior and Group Membership.”  American Economic Review 97(4):  1340–52.
  • Chen, Yan, and Xin Li. 2009. “Group Identity and Social Preferences.” American Economic Review 99(1): 431–57.
  • Cooper, David J., and John H. Kagel. 2005. “Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games.” American Economic Review 95(3): 477–509.
  • Fahr, René, and Bernd Irlenbusch. 2011. “Who Follows the Crowd—Groups or Individuals?” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 80(2): 200–209.
  • Feri, Francesco, Bernd Irlenbusch, and Matthias Sutter.  2010. “Efi  ciency  Gains  from Team-Based Coordination—Large-Scale Experimental Evidence.”  American Economic Review 100(4): 1892–1912.
  • Holmstrom, Bengt.  1982. “Moral Hazard in Teams.” Bell Journal of Economics 13(2): 324–40.
  • Kocher, Martin G., Sabine Strauss, and Matthias Sutter.  2006. “Individual or Team Decision-Making— Causes and Consequences of Self-Selection.” Games and Economic Behavior 56(2): 259–70.
  • Kocher, Martin G., and Matthias Sutter.  2005. “The Decision Maker Matters: Individual versus Group Behavior in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games.” Economic Journal 115(500): 200–223.
  • Kugler, Tamar, Gary Bornstein, Martin G. Kocher, and Matthias Sutter. 2007. “Trust between Individuals and Groups: Groups are Less Trusting Than Individuals But Just as Trustworthy.” Journal of Economic Psychology 28(6): 646–57.
  • Laughlin, Patrick R., Bryan L. Bonner, and Andrew G. Miner. 2002. “Groups Perform Better Than the Best Individuals on Letter-to-Numbers Problems.”  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 88(2): 606–620.
  • Levitt, Steven, and John A. List.  2007. “What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal about the Real World?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2): 153–74.
  • Mas, Alexandre, and Enrico Moretti.  2009. “Peers at Work.” American Economic Review 99(1): 112–45.
  • Michaelson, Larry K., Warren E. Watson, and Robert H. Black.  1989. “A Realistic Test of Individual versus Group Consensus Decision Making.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74(5): 834–39.
  • Schopler, John, Chester A. Insko, Jennifer Wieselquist, Michael Pemberton, Betty Witcher, Rob Kozar, Chris Roddenberry, and Tim Wildschut.  2001. “When Groups Are More Competitive Than Individuals: The Domain of the Discontinuity Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(4): 632–44.
  • Sheremeta, Roman M., and Jingjing Zhang. 2010. “Can Groups Solve the Problem of Over-bidding in Contests?”  Social Choice and Welfare 35(2): 175–97.
  • Song, Fei. 2008. “Trust and Reciprocity Behavior and Behavioral Forecasts: Individuals versus Group-Representatives.”  Games and Economic Behavior 62(2): 675–96.
  • Surowiecki, James. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations. Doubleday.
  • Sutter, Matthias. 2005. “Are Four Heads Better Than Two? An Experimental Beauty-Contest Game with Teams of Different Size.”  Economics Letters 88(1): 41–46.
  • Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman.  1983. “Extensional versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review 90(40): 293–315.

==cited by==

1. Ananish Chaudhuri, Tirnud Paichayontvijit, Lifeng Shen. 2012. Gender differences in trust and trustworthiness: Individuals, single sex and mixed sex groups. Journal of Economic Psychology.