The puzzle of cooperation in a game of chicken: an experimental study

Cabon-Dhersin, Marie-Laure; Etchart-Vincent, Nathalie

doi:10.1007/s11238-010-9220-9

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a better understanding of the experimental design, it is worth saying a few words about the model and theoretical predictions. More details can be found in Cabon‐Dhersin and Ramani (2007) as well as in Cabon‐Dhersin and Etchart‐Vincent (2012).…”

Section: The Theoretical Framework: a Game Of Chicken With Heteromentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the subjects were informed that the selection process would take place after all the subjects had participated in the session, and that the randomly selected subjects would be contacted by e‐mail 14 . To avoid extending the paper excessively, the interested reader is referred to Cabon‐Dhersin and Etchart‐Vincent (2012) for more details about the payment procedure; the payment‐instruction sheets given to the subjects are available upon request.…”

Section: The Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among them, 79 subjects took part in COOP. The subjects whose behaviour was not fully compatible with that of an SC were excluded from the dataset; some subjects had to be discarded due to erratic answers (see Cabon‐Dhersin and Etchart‐Vincent, 2012, for some additional information about the discarding process). Finally, we were left with a 72‐subject pool (of which 36 were female) in BR, and with a 66‐subject pool (35 females) in COOP.…”

Section: The Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a better understanding, it should be emphasized that this study actually belongs to a larger experimental research sequence. Indeed, our first intention was to examine the descriptive accuracy of Cabon‐Dhersin and Ramani's (2007) model (see Cabon‐Dhersin and Etchart‐Vincent, 2012). Only in a second step, after considering it further (but, naturally, before designing the experimental study itself) did we decide to take advantage of decreasing marginal costs by introducing two additional sessions, using a within‐subject design, allowing us to pursue two additional – but secondary – purposes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Cooperation: The Power of a Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence on Wording and Gender Effects in a Game of Chicken

Cabon-Dhersin¹,

Etchart-Vincent²

2012

Bulletin of Econ Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framing has been widely shown to affect decision making. In this paper, we investigate experimentally whether, and to what extent, cooperative behaviour in a Game of Chicken may be impacted by a very basic change in the labelling of the strategies. Our within-subject experimental design involves two treatments. The only difference between them is that we introduce either a socially-oriented wording (I cooperate/I do not cooperate) or colours (red/blue) to designate strategies. The level of cooperation appears to be higher in the socially-oriented context, but only when uncertainty as regards the type of the partner is manipulated, and especially among females. . We thank Tim Cason as well as two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions.1 From a normative point of view, only the 'deep structure' of the decision problem should influence decision making. 43 44 Bulletin of Economic Research et al., 2011); and (ii) 'label' framing, which consists in manipulating the game's title, the game's characterization, the labelling of players' strategies or type of player, and so on (see, for instance, Rege and Telle, 2004;Zhong et al., 2007;Dufwenberg et al., 2011). In this paper, we are interested in how a change in the labelling of the strategies is likely to affect cooperative behaviour.To avoid confounding framing effects and better control the data, interactive decision making has often been investigated using context-free experimental designs that 'typically remove informational cues that might provide richer meaning to the game' (Zhong et al., 2007, p. 432). In particular, defective/cooperative strategies are usually designated using a neutral wording, using such labels as 'A and B; C and D; X and Y; red, blue, yellow, or white; up and down; or left and right ' (pp. 433-4).On the other hand, real life usually involves explicit decision settings, which may impair the external validity of data collected using a context-free experimental design. A number of experimental studies have investigated the influence of 'valence' and 'label' framing on cooperative behaviour, be it by comparing behaviour in a context-free setting with behaviour in a context-rich setting, or by comparing behaviour in different context-rich settings (for example, depending on whether the focus is made on either cooperation or competition, sharing money or earning money for oneself, and so on). Most of the time, the level of cooperation appears to be higher when frame manipulation is intended to put the subjects in a socially-oriented mood.Decision making in interactive settings in general, and especially cooperative behaviour, has also been shown to be gender-dependent, even though the direction of the evidence remains unclear. 2 However, even though men may exhibit a more cooperative (or contributive) behaviour than women (e.g., Schwieren and Sutter, 2008), the opposite pattern seems to be more frequent (e.g., Gächter et al., 2004; see also Eckel andGrossman, 2008a andCroson andGneezy, 2009 for comprehensive reviews).Severa...

show abstract

Section: The Theoretical Framework: a Game Of Chicken With Heteromentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cooperation: The Power of a Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence on Wording and Gender Effects in a Game of Chicken

Cabon-Dhersin¹,

Etchart-Vincent²

2012

Bulletin of Econ Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In society, people rely on social mechanisms to maintain both cooperation between two parties (bilateral cooperation) and group cooperation (Cabon-Dhersin & Etchart-Vincent, 2012;Cheung, 2014). Different theories have been developed to explain this process, and these have implicated social mechanisms, such as reputation, group selection, and punishment (Balafoutas, Grechenig, & Nikiforakis, 2014;Chavez & Bicchieri, 2013), as being conducive to enforce social norms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment as a Mechanism to Maintain Bilateral Cooperation: A Social Behavior Experiment

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We designed 3 social behavior experiments involving compensation for real estate expropriation. We recruited 88 students at a university in China as our participants, and investigated the impact of third-party punishment on bilateral cooperation in a laboratory setting. The results showed the heterogeneity of human behavior in the different experiment types. In addition, results showed that the potential impact of punishment became more powerful by adding a third party. Finally, a third party had low punishment costs and a significantly higher probability of actually imposing punishment than did a second party. Results showed that, compared with second-party punishment, third-party punishment is more conducive to the maintenance of bilateral cooperation.

show abstract

A functional MRI study on how oxytocin affects decision making in social dilemmas: Cooperate as long as it pays off, aggress only when you think you can win

Lambert

Declerck

Boone

et al. 2017

Hormones and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The puzzle of cooperation in a game of chicken: an experimental study

Abstract: Social dilemma, Game of chicken, Cooperation, Experiment, Heterogeneous population, C72, C92,

Cited by 6 publications

References 48 publications

Cooperation: The Power of a Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence on Wording and Gender Effects in a Game of Chicken

Cooperation: The Power of a Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence on Wording and Gender Effects in a Game of Chicken

Punishment as a Mechanism to Maintain Bilateral Cooperation: A Social Behavior Experiment

A functional MRI study on how oxytocin affects decision making in social dilemmas: Cooperate as long as it pays off, aggress only when you think you can win

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About