Yu-Hsuan Lin Catholic University of Korea, Korea University of York, U.K. 5 th Congress of EAAERE, Taipei, 06 th – 07 th August 2015.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discussion of “Managers’ Commitment to the Goals Contained in a Strategic Performance Measurement System” SILVANA
Advertisements

Ultimatum Game Two players bargain (anonymously) to divide a fixed amount between them. P1 (proposer) offers a division of the “pie” P2 (responder) decides.
Game Theory Assignment For all of these games, P1 chooses between the columns, and P2 chooses between the rows.
ECON 100 Tutorial: Week 9 office: LUMS C85.
3. Basic Topics in Game Theory. Strategic Behavior in Business and Econ Outline 3.1 What is a Game ? The elements of a Game The Rules of the.
1 On the Methodology of Inequity Aversion Theory.
© 2009 Pearson Education Canada 16/1 Chapter 16 Game Theory and Oligopoly.
Konan Chan Fengfei Li National Chengchi University University of Hong Kong Tse-Chun Lin Ji-Chai Lin University of Hong Kong Louisiana State University.
This paper reports an experimental study based on the popular Chinos game, in which three players, arranged in sequence, have to guess the total number.
1 Field Experiment on Incentive of Communication, Compilation and Evaluation 1. Motivation for the study 2. What is the Field Experiment 3. Framework of.
4 Why Should we Believe Politicians? Lupia and McCubbins – The Democratic Dilemma GV917.
GAME THEORY.
Fundamentals of Political Science Dr. Sujian Guo Professor of Political Science San Francisco State Unversity
Public goods provision and endogenous coalitions (experimental approach)
BEE3049 Behaviour, Decisions and Markets Miguel A. Fonseca.
AWESOME: A General Multiagent Learning Algorithm that Converges in Self- Play and Learns a Best Response Against Stationary Opponents Vincent Conitzer.
An introduction to game theory Today: The fundamentals of game theory, including Nash equilibrium.
THE ROLE OF PROACTIVE ADAPTATION IN INTERNATIONAL MITIGATION COALITIONS Kelly de CERE.
Do Friends and Relatives Really Help in Getting a Good Job? Michele Pellizzari London School of Economics.
Game Theory, Strategic Decision Making, and Behavioral Economics 11 Game Theory, Strategic Decision Making, and Behavioral Economics All men can see the.
Coalition Formation between Self-Interested Heterogeneous Actors Arlette van Wissen Bart Kamphorst Virginia DignumKobi Gal.
Information Targeting and Coordination: An Experimental Study Matthew Hashim Joint work with Karthik Kannan and Sandra Maximiano Purdue University.
OLIGOPOLY Chapter 16. The Spectrum of Market Structures.
Course Behavioral Economics Alessandro InnocentiAlessandro Innocenti Academic year Lecture 14 Fairness LECTURE 14 FAIRNESS Aim: To analyze the.
May 27, 2003 Vítězslav Babický Attitudes to risk and fairness: how they are related and how they evolved - theoretical and experimental studies.
International Environmental Agreements with Uncertain Environmental Damage and Learning Michèle Breton, HEC Montréal Lucia Sbragia, Durham University Game.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright  2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. GAME THEORY, STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING, AND BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS.
1 The Determinants of Managerial Decisions Under Risk Martin G. Kocher University of Innsbruck Ganna Pogrebna Columbia University Matthias Sutter University.
The effect of common knowledge – Why do people cooperate more when they face a social dilemma situation where mutual cooperation yields restoration of.
Thinking About Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior.
1 Maximizing individual or common profit? Maximizing individual profit Games theory Economy Maximizing common profit Economic psychology - 63% of trust.
Why is Research Important?. Basic Research Pure science or research Research for the sake of finding new information and expanding the knowledge base.
Motivation This experiment was a public good experiment to see if groups contribute differently than individuals.  intermediate social structure This.
Does Group Identification Matter? - Experimental Evidence Shamlesh Annah Sebastian Edwards Christian Freund Julian Schumacher Marcin Strzelczyk Course:
Theory of Mind Enhances Preference for Fairness Haruto Takagishi 1,2, Shinya Kameshima 3, Joanna Schug 1, Michiko Koizumi 1, Toshio Yamagishi 1 1 Hokkaido.
Data Analysis Econ 176, Fall Populations When we run an experiment, we are always measuring an outcome, x. We say that an outcome belongs to some.
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Second Lecture 3 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Research Strategies. Why is Research Important? Answer in complete sentences in your bell work spiral. Discuss the consequences of good or poor research.
I. Research Strategies Module 02. A. Research Methodology Method of asking questions then drawing logical supported conclusions Researchers need to be.
7.4 DV’s and Groups Often it is desirous to know if two different groups follow the same or different regression functions -One way to test this is to.
Leiden University Institute for Psychological Research Honesty Pays: On the benefits of having and disclosing information in coalition formation Ilja van.
Explicit versus Implicit Contracts for Dividing the Benefits of Cooperation Marco Casari and Timothy Cason Purdue University.
Testing theories of fairness— Intentions matter Armin Falk, Ernst Fehr, Urs Fischbacher February 26, 2015.
How to Analyse Social Network? : Part 2 Game Theory Thank you for all referred contexts and figures.
CULTURAL STEREOTYPES AND NORM OF RECIPROCITY 11/03/
© 2009 South-Western, a part of Cengage Learning, all rights reserved C H A P T E R Oligopoly.
Coordination and Learning in Dynamic Global Games: Experimental Evidence Olga Shurchkov MIT The Economic Science Association World Meeting 2007.
1 Simon Gächter & Elke Renner University of Nottingham Centre for Economic Decision Research and Experimental Economics The Role of Leadership and Beliefs.
UNSW | BUSINESS SCHOOL | SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS Calling the shots Experimental evidence on significant aversion to non-existing strategic risk Ben Greiner.
Ch. 16 Oligopoly. Oligopoly Only a few sellers offer similar or identical products Actions of any seller can have large impact on profits of other sellers.
Research in Psychology Chapter Two 8-10% of Exam AP Psychology.
Double Coordination in Small Groups Luigi Mittone, Matteo Ploner, Ivan Soraperra Computable and Experimental Economics Laboratory – University of Trento,
Consider a very simple setting: a fish stock is harvested by two symmetric (identical) players, which can be fishermen or fleets. 2.1 A Simple Non-cooperative.
Social Networks and Trust: not the Experimental Evidence you may Expect Daniela Di Cagno Emanuela Sciubba Luiss Guido Carli, Rome Birkbeck College, London.
Combining top-down and bottom-up accountability: Evidence from a bribery experiment Danila Serra University of Oxford and CSAE Fourth Ph.D. Presentation.
Chapter 12 Game Theory Presented by Nahakpam PhD Student 1Game Theory.
Game theory Chapter 28 and 29
Correlated equilibria, good and bad: an experimental study
Should Managers Use Team-Based Contests?
Ch. 16 Oligopoly.
Game theory Chapter 28 and 29
THE ECONOMY: THE CORE PROJECT
Unit 4 SOCIAL INTERACTIONS.
Ising game: Equivalence between Exogenous and Endogenous Factors
Gönül Doğan, Marcel van Assen, Jan Potters Tilburg University
Chapter 7: The Normality Assumption and Inference with OLS
Molly W. Dahl Georgetown University Econ 101 – Spring 2009
Jump-Shot Or Drive? (Using Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibria to Predict Player Behavior) By Patrick Long.
Game Theory: The Nash Equilibrium
Social anchoring and hypothetical bias in stated WTP
Presentation transcript:

Yu-Hsuan Lin Catholic University of Korea, Korea University of York, U.K. 5 th Congress of EAAERE, Taipei, 06 th – 07 th August 2015

 Motivation  Literature review  Model  Experimental design and results  Conclusion 2

 Since Barrett (1994), the literature on IEAs largely assumes that countries join an IEA for their self- interests.  However, recent experimental evidences on IEAs suggest that people are far less likely to free ride and more likely to cooperate than the theory suggests (Kosfeld et al., 2009; Burger and Kolstad, 2010).  Existing research on IEAs largely presume that an individual's preference is egoistic/selfish. However, the assumption of a pure egoistic preference may not be enough to capture players behaviours. 3

 Kosfeld et al. (2009), Lin (2014) employed the inequality- averse preference (proposed by Fehr and Schmidt, 1999) and confirm with laboratory-based evidence that when inequality-averse players exist, the coalition is no longer a Nash prediction, and the grand coalition becomes an expected equilibrium outcome.  Kolstad (2012) adopts Charness and Rabin's (2002) social preferences theory which suggest that agents mainly care about three things : private payoff, fairness in payoffs, and overall efficiency.  Individual incentives for participating in a coalition are still unclear. 4

 Does players change their decisions if they are altruists?  How do individuals' social preferences affect their own incentives for participating in a public good game?  The hypothesis of this study assumes that the attitude of altruism would influence the equilibrium differently from the egoistic preference. This entails that a coalition would be formed differently when individuals care about others agents’ payoffs. 5

Models 6

 7

 8

9

10

Experimental Design and Results 11

12  The experiment was conducted at the centre for EXperimental EConomics (EXEC) laboratory at the University of York (UK) in 2013 and programmed with z-Tree (Fischbacher, 2007). There were 50 subjects who were registered on the ORSEE registration system by Greiner (2004).

13

14

15 Altruism testCoalition game Aim Find individual altruistic attitude Find individual willingness to contribute a public good Game players 25 Rounds (Four sub-treatments in 15 rounds)

Altruistic test 16

List of values of the token and exchange rate Round 1 £ £ 10£ £ 7.5£ £ 5£ £ 2.5£ £ 7.5£ £ 5£ £ 0.5£ £ 5£ £ 2.5£ Round 11 £ 1£ £ 2.5£ £ 2.5£ £ 0.5£ £ 1£ £ 1£ £ 0.5£ £ 1£ £ 0.5£ £ 0.5£

Altruistic test 18 £ 0.5 v.s. £ 1 v.s. £ 1 £ 5 v.s. £ 10.5 £ 2.5 v.s. £ 5.5 £ 1 v.s. £ 2.5 £ 0.5 v.s. £ 2.5 £ 0.5 v.s. £ 5 £ 0.5 v.s. £ 10

19

OLS estimation of altruistic preference Variable Altruism level OLS Regression Constant term Age Politic attitude Religion Log Likelihood Total Observation50 20

Summary  The subjects who identified themselves with stronger religious belief behaved less altruistically. Whilst the rest factors have insignificant impacts on the subjects' altruistic attitudes. 21

Part 2. Public good game 22

In each round of this Part, subjects simply to decide, simultaneously and independently, whether or not to join a coalition with the other players. If a profitable coalition is formed, the individual payoffs are shown in the payoff tables. If a profitable coalition is not formed, everyone gets nothing. There follows a sample payoff table, in which ‘IN’ means that the player has chosen to join the coalition and ‘OUT’ means that they have not. 23

PLAYER 1PLAYER 2PLAYER 3PLAYER 4PLAYER 5 IN6.75IN6.75IN6.75IN6.75IN6.75 IN3.75OUT12IN3.75IN3.75IN3.75 OUT9IN4.5IN4.5IN4.5IN4.5 OUT6.75OUT9IN1.5IN1.5IN1.5 In the rest of the combinations, every players has “0” 24

25

26

27 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

28 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10

29

Summary  Overall, either the decision made in the past round or the subject's weakly dominant strategy is joining, the subject is more likely to join. The religious believer are less likely to join the IEA.  The lower altruistic attitude a subject has, the more likely the subject is to violate the external constraint and participate in the coalition.  Pro-right-wing supporters are more likely to break the internal constraint by not joining the coalition. However, when the subjects have the chance to free ride, pro- right-wingers are more likely to give up this chance. 30

31

32

33

 Compared to the actual decisions, the predictions with altruistic attitudes have better performance than the self-interested predictions. When subject's dominant strategy is to join the coalition, the predictions with altruistic attitude perform same to the self-interested predictions. On the other hand, when subject's dominant strategy is not to join the coalition, the predictions with altruistic attitude are slightly superior to the self-interested predictions.  The estimations illustrate the subjects' motivations. The rate of cooperation in a coalition game seems to be negatively correlated with the magnitude of altruistic preferences: the lower the degree of altruistic preference, the more is the cooperation. 34

Further discussion  Strategic behaviours have been observed in our experiments: it may be difficult to infer countries' true preferences for altruism from their observed behaviour.  Social preference might have a learning process in group cooperation. 35

 Full paper is available  36