Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-03T23:39:26.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning and sophistication in coordination games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Kyle Hyndman ,
Antoine Terracol  and
Jonathan Vaksmann
Kyle Hyndman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University, 3300 Dyer Street, 301R, Dallas, TX 75275, USA
Antoine Terracol*
Affiliation:
EQUIPPE and Centre d’Économie de la Sorbonne, Universités de Lille, Université Paris 1—Panthéon Sorbonne, CNRS, Paris, France
Jonathan Vaksmann*
Affiliation:
Centre d’Économie de la Sorbonne, Université Paris 1—Panthéon Sorbonne, CNRS, Paris, France
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper studies the role of strategic teaching in coordination games and whether changing the incentives of players to teach leads to more efficient coordination. We ran experiments where subjects played one of four coordination games in constant pairings, where the incentives to teach were varied along two dimensions— the short run cost of teaching and the long run benefit to teaching. We show which aspects of the game lead subjects to adopt long run teaching strategies, and show that subjects try to manipulate their opponent's actions to pull them out of a situation of coordination failure. We also show that extending a model of decision making by introducing a forward-looking component helps to track teachers’ behaviour more accurately, and describes the way players behave in a more unified way across both teachers and learners.

Keywords

Game theoryLearningTeachingCoordinationExperiment

JEL classification

D43: Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 450 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We would like to thank the Co-Editor, Jordi Brandts, and two anonymous referees whose suggestions have led to a substantially improved version. We are very indebted to participants at various conferences and seminars for valuable comments. We also thank Maxim Frolov for his technical assistance. Financial support from SMU (URC Grant), the CNRS and Louis Lévy-Garboua (PPF project) is gratefully acknowledged. All remaining errors are our own.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-009-9223-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Battalio, R., Samuelson, L., & van Huyck, J. (2001). Optimization incentives and coordination failure in laboratory stag hunt games. Econometrica, 69, 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 871–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. (2006). A change would do you good: An experimental study of how to overcome coordination failure in organizations. American Economic Review, 96, 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., Cooper, D., & Fatas, E. (2007). Leadership and overcoming coordination failure with asymmetric costs. Experimental Economics, 10, 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., & Ho, T. H. (1999). Experienced-weighted attraction learning in normal form games. Econometrica, 67(4), 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., & Lovallo, D. (1999). Overconfidence and excess entry: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 89, 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., & Chong, J. K. (2002). Sophisticated experience-weighted attraction learning and strategic teaching in repeated games. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(1), 137–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., & Chong, J. K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(3), 861–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., Lau, S. H. P., & Mui, V. L. (2008). Learning, teaching, and turn taking in the repeated assignment game. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., Schotter, A., & Sopher, B. (2009). Talking ourselves to efficiency: Coordination in intergenerational minimum effort games with private, almost common and common knowledge of advice. Economic Journal, 119, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheung, Y. W., & Friedman, D. (1997). Individual learning in normal form games: Some laboratory results. Games and Economic Behavior, 19(1), 46–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, I. K., & Sargent, T. J. (2008). Self-confirming equilibrium. In Durlauf, S. & Blume, L. (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics.Google Scholar
Cho, I. K., Williams, N., & Sargent, T. J. (2002). Escaping Nash inflation. Review of Economic Studies, 69(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M. A., & Weizsäcker, G. (2008). Stated beliefs and play in normal form games. Review of Economic Studies, 75(3), 729–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M. A., Crawford, V. P., & Broseta, B. (2001). Cognition and behavior in normal-form games: An experimental study. Econometrica, 69(5), 1193–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. P. (1995). Adaptive dynamics in coordination games. Econometrica, 63(1), 103–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrblatt, W., Hyndman, K., Özbay, E., & Schotter, A. (2008). Convergence: an experimental study of teaching and learning in repeated games. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Ellison, G. (1997). Learning from personal experience: One rational guy and the justification of myopia. Games and Economic Behavior, 19, 180–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. The American Economic Review, 88(4), 848–881.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (1989). Reputation and equilibrium selection in games with a patient player. Econometrica, 57, 759–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (1998). The theory of learning in games. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, E. (2002). Two competing models of how people learn in games. Econometrica, 70(6), 21412166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehiel, P. (2001). Limited foresight may force cooperation. Review of Economic Studies, 68, 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandori, M., Mailath, G., & Rob, R. (1993). Learning, mutation, and long run equilibria in games. Econometrica, 61, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knez, M., & Camerer, C. (1994). Creating expectational assets in the laboratory: Coordination in ‘weakest- link’ games. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knez, M., & Camerer, C. (2000). Increasing cooperation in prisoner's dilemmas by establishing a precedent of efficiency in coordination games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 194–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcet, A., & Sargent, T. J. (1989). Convergence of least squares learning mechanisms in self-referential linear stochastic models. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 337–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengel, F. (2008). Learning by (limited) forward looking players (Working Paper RM/08/053).Google Scholar
Nyarko, Y., & Schotter, A. (2002). An experimental study of belief learning using elicited beliefs. Econometrica, 70(3), 971–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offerman, T., & Sonnemans, J. (2001). Is the quadratic scoring rule behaviorally incentive compatible? Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., & Schram, A. (2001). Expectation formation in step-level public good games. Economic Inquiry, 39, 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, R. (1984). Orange juice and weather. American Economic Review, 74(5), 861–880.Google Scholar
Rutström, E.E., & Wilcox, N. T. (2004). Learning and belief elicitation: observer effects (Working Paper).Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. (1998). Evolutionary games and equilibrium selection. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stahl, D. O. (1993). Evolution of smarts players. Games and Economic Behavior, 5(4), 604–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, D. O., & Wilson, P. W. (1995). On players models of other players: Theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 218–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terracol, A., & Vaksmann, J. (2009). Dumbing down rational players: Learning and teaching in an experimental game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(1-2), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Huyck, J., Battalio, R., & Beil, R. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.Google Scholar
Weibull, J. W. (1997). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zeiliger, R. (2000). A presentation of regate, Internet based software for experimental economics. Lyon: GATE, http://www.gate.cnrs.fr/~zeiliger/regate/regateintro.ppt.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hyndman et al. supplementary material

Appendix A
Download Hyndman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 693.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hyndman et al. supplementary material

Appendix B
Download Hyndman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 163.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hyndman et al. supplementary material

Hyndman et al. supplementary material 1
Download Hyndman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 472.6 KB