IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-12-00490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An experimental study of e-mail games with strategic information transmission and communication cost

Author

Listed:
  • Toshiji Kawagoe

    (Future University Hakodate)

  • Hirokazu Takizawa

    (Chuo University)

Abstract

We experimentally examined several versions of Rubinstein (1989)'s e-mail game in the laboratory. He shows that, in the unique equilibrium of this game, players behave as if no information is exchanged, no matter how many messages are successfully sent. This has been regarded as a "paradox of almost common knowledge." Binmore and Samuelson (2001) later extended Rubinstein's model by replacing automatic information transmission with the strategic one, or by introducing communication costs. We test these theories in the laboratory experiment. In general, our experimental results fail to provide support for Binmore and Samuelson's prediction. While they predict that those changes will induce players to take heed of the exchanged messages, our experimental results show little evidences to support their predictions and contradictory results in some cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Toshiji Kawagoe & Hirokazu Takizawa, 2012. "An experimental study of e-mail games with strategic information transmission and communication cost," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 2921-2929.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2012/Volume32/EB-12-V32-I4-P281.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Binmore, Ken & Samuelson, Larry, 2001. "Coordinated Action in the Electronic Mail Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 35(1-2), pages 6-30, April.
    2. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1989. "The Electronic Mail Game: Strategic Behavior under "Almost Common Knowledge."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 385-391, June.
    3. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Uwe Dulleck, 2007. "The E-Mail Game Revisited — Modeling Rough Inductive Reasoning," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 323-339.
    2. Müller, Christoph, 2020. "Robust implementation in weakly perfect Bayesian strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    4. Chaitanya S. Gokhale & Joseph Bulbulia & Marcus Frean, 2022. "Collective narratives catalyse cooperation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Dirk Bergemann & Benjamin Brooks & Stephen Morris, 2022. "Counterfactuals with Latent Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(1), pages 343-368, January.
    6. Takahashi, Satoru & Tercieux, Olivier, 2020. "Robust equilibrium outcomes in sequential games under almost common certainty of payoffs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    8. De Jaegher, Kris, 2008. "Efficient communication in the electronic mail game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 468-497, July.
    9. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, "undated". "Approximate Common Knowledge and Co-ordination: Recent Lessons from Game Theory," Penn CARESS Working Papers 72042421d029130510780dde2, Penn Economics Department.
    10. van Damme, E.E.C., 2000. "Non-cooperative Games," Other publications TiSEM 51465233-a356-4d20-acc4-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. van Damme, E.E.C., 2015. "Game theory : Noncooperative games," Other publications TiSEM ff518f2b-501f-4d99-817b-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Steiner, Jakub & Stewart, Colin, 2011. "Communication, timing, and common learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(1), pages 230-247, January.
    13. Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, 2000. "Global Games: Theory and Applications," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1275, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    14. Uwe Dulleck, 2007. "The E-Mail Game Revisited — Modeling Rough Inductive Reasoning," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(02), pages 323-339.
    15. Dominik Grafenhofer & Wolgang Kuhle, 2014. "Observing Each Other's Observations in the Electronic Mail Game," Papers 1501.00882, arXiv.org.
    16. Kris De Jaegher, 2015. "Beneficial Long Communication in the Multiplayer Electronic Mail Game," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 233-251, November.
    17. Basu, Pathikrit & Chatterjee, Kalyan & Hoshino, Tetsuya & Tamuz, Omer, 2020. "Repeated coordination with private learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    18. Dominik Grafenhofer & Wolfgang Kuhle, 2015. "Observing Each Other's Observations in a Bayesian Coordination Game," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2015_18, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    19. Grafenhofer, Dominik & Kuhle, Wolfgang, 2016. "Observing each other’s observations in a Bayesian coordination game," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 10-17.
    20. Dominik Grafenhofer & Wolfgang Kuhle, 2021. "Observing Actions in Global Games," Papers 2111.10554, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    E-mail game; almost common knowledge; experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.