IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v148y2024icp68-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Failing to utilize potentially effective focal points: Prominence can stymie coordination on distinct actions

Author

Listed:
  • Gneezy, Uri
  • Rottenstreich, Yuval

Abstract

Are people skillful in utilizing potential focal points? We find a class of situations for which the answer is negative: the presence of prominent actions appears to stymie the use of distinct actions for coordination. Across several experimental games, we consistently observe that players readily coordinate on a categorically distinct action when all available actions are non-prominent but not when some actions are prominent. For instance, given the action set {Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Tianjin}, most players select the Chinese city Tianjin. Yet, given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Tianjin}, they are roughly equally likely to select either American president and unlikely to select Tianjin, and given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Shanghai}, their choices are distributed approximately uniformly. The observation that prominence stymies reliance on distinctiveness informs cognitive hierarchy and team reasoning theories of how people recognize focality.

Suggested Citation

  • Gneezy, Uri & Rottenstreich, Yuval, 2024. "Failing to utilize potentially effective focal points: Prominence can stymie coordination on distinct actions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 68-81.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:148:y:2024:i:c:p:68-81
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2024.07.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001040
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2024.07.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:gamebe:v:148:y:2024:i:c:p:68-81. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.