Double Coordination in Small Groups - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – Double Coordination in Small Groups PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 1f2bc9-ZDc1Z


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation

Double Coordination in Small Groups


Coordination failures in large groups: the weak link coordination game ... Progressive increase in the size of the group. Weak Link Coordination Games. Player's choice ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:23
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Ploner


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Double Coordination in Small Groups

Double Coordination in Small Groups
  • Luigi Mittone, Matteo Ploner, Ivan Soraperra
  • Computable and Experimental Economics Laboratory
    University of Trento, Italy
  • IAREP/SABE - World Meeting 2008
  • Roma 4 September 2008

The Experimental Approach to Innovation a New
Research Field for the CEEL
  • Two work in progress projects
  • A nation wide field study on coordination in
    non-profit firms knowledge sharing and
    dissemination within organizations (U-Know
    Project financed by the EU)
  • Coordination and innovation within the network
    externalities frame

Motivations and Related Literature (1)
  • Coordination has been studied exclusively in
    single groups (BoS, WLG, Minimum Game, etc.).
  • Many interesting situations in which two groups
    of people must coordinate their actions on two
  • two groups of stakeholders in a firm,
  • two departments of the same firm,
  • consumers and producers of goods with network
    externalities, etc.

Motivations and Related Literature (2)
  • A crossroad between two streams of literature
    coordination failures and network externalities
  • Network externalities considered within the
    problem of introducing a new product
  • Coordination failures in large groups the weak
    link coordination game

Technology Adoption and Network Externalities
  • Katz and Shapiro (AmEcRew 1985, JourPolEc 1986)
  • Liebowitz and Margolis (JourEcPersp 1994)

Katz and Shapiro (1986) p.822-823
Katz and Shapiro (1986)
Network Externalities
  • Network consumption externalities require that at
    least one specific attribute, using the
    Lancasters Theory of Consumption terminology, is
    almost perfectly homogeneous
  • Supply side competition is therefore restricted
    to the other attributes (first of all price)
  • The common attribute works as an entry barrier
    for the newcomers.

Network Externalities
  • Network externalities as a public good
  • Need for coordination to produce a Pareto
    efficient solution.
  • The specific case when the consumers must
    coordinate themselves to switch from a
    traditional product (already characterized by
    network externalities) to an innovative one
    (which we assume can produce even stronger
    positive externalities due to the use of a more
    innovative technology)

Coordination in Experimental Games
  • WEBER (AmEcRew 2006)
  • BORNSTEIN et al (GamesEcBehav 2002)
  • COOPER et al (AmEcRew 1990)

COOPER et al (1990) p. 218
  • We study a class of symmetric, simultaneous
    move, complete information games called
    coordination games. This term refers to games
    which exhibit multiple Nash equilibria which are
    Pareto-rankable.' That is, all players are better
    off in one equilibrium relative to another
  • yet may be unable to explicitly coordi-
  • nate their strategies to achieve the preferred
    outcome. When this occurs, a coordination failure

WEBER (2006) BORNSTEIN et al (2002)
  • Weak link coordination game
  • Coordination failure in large groups
  • Competition between groups
  • Progressive increase in the size of the group

Weak Link Coordination Games
Players choice Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players Minimum choice of all players
Players choice 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7 .90 .70 .50 .30 .10 -.10 -.30
6 .80 .60 .40 .20 .00 -.20
5 .70 .50 .30 .10 -.10
4 .60 .40 .20 .00
3 .50 .30 .10
2 .40 .20
1 .30
Source Weber, 2006
Two Groups, Two Goods, Double Coordination
  • One group are the consumers
  • One group are the producers
  • Positive network externalities for both groups
  • Multiple Nash equilibria
  • Not a weak link game
  • One innovative good
  • One traditional good

Interaction Structure
  • Coordination Game
  • 2 Pareto-ranked equilibria
  • Two actions
  • T(raditional good)
  • I(nnovative good)

Interaction Structure
  • Groups of 10
  • 5 players role A
  • 5 players role B
  • 30 repetitions with feedback
  • 1 repetition rewarded (random pick)
  • 2 experimental treatments
  • Baseline (two different payoffs structures)
  • Treatment (two different payoffs structures)

  • Symmetric game
  • 2 Nash equilibria
  • All players choose I All players choose T
  • Dominant strategy is to choose what the majority
    of the members of the other group chooses
    (independently from ones own group)

Treatment (1)
  • Asymmetric game
  • 2 Nash equilibria
  • All players choose I All players choose T
  • Dominant strategy for role A is to choose what
    the majority of role B chooses
  • Dominant strategy for role B is to choose what
    the majority of role B chooses

  • Same properties of Baseline 1 but
  • Focal point in the NW corner
  • Weaker risk perception for the I move

Treatment (2)
  • Baseline
  • Players A (e.g., consumers) and Players B (e.g.,
    producers) must build a belief on the preferred
    choice of the other group
  • Treatment
  • Players B (e.g., producers) have a greater power
    in determining the equilibrium
  • In setting (2) option I is less risky than in (1)

  • Baseline
  • Due to the simmetry of the incentives across
    groups and to the balanced payoff structure of
    the two matrices we expect a fast convergence
    towards one of the two equilibria.
  • Treatment
  • Players B can pull towards one of the two goods
  • If no coordination at the beginning then the
    choice of majority of Bs will attract the other
    players in the game
  • In (2) more global coordination on I,I than in

Procedures and Participants
  • 60 Participants
  • Students of the University of Trento, Italy
  • Computerized experiment
  • Web-based
  • Average earnings
  • Time required
  • About 1h 30min

Results Payoffs1
  • In the baseline a fast coordination on I is
  • In the treatment coordination on I is slower (or
    it does not even occur !)

Results Payoffs 2
  • When the risk of choosing I is low all the
    people immediately coordinates on the Pareto
    Dominant equilibrium

Preliminary Conclusions
  • A very high rate of coordination compared to the
    coordination levels reported in the literature
  • Slower coordination in Treatment(1) when compared
    to Baseline(1)
  • Need for a more detailed individual level