IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0226929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collectivism-individualism: Strategic behavior in tacit coordination games

Author

Listed:
  • Dor Mizrahi
  • Ilan Laufer
  • Inon Zuckerman

Abstract

The effect of culture on strategic interaction has been widely explored. However, the effect of the cultural background on focal point selection in tacit coordination games has not yet been examined. To accomplish this goal, in this study we have focused on the individual level of analysis. That is, we constructed a strategic profile to model the behavior of each individual player and then used unsupervised learning methods on the individual data points. We have chosen to examine two groups of participants, Israelis (ICB) and Chinese (CCB), each belonging to a different cultural background representing individualist and collectivist societies, respectively. Clustering the individual strategic profiles has allowed us to gain further insights regarding the differences between the behavioral strategies of each cultural group. The results of this study demonstrate that the cultural background has a profound effect on the strategic profile and on the ability to succeed in tacit coordination games. Moreover, the current study emphasizes the importance of relying on the individual level of analysis and not only on the group level of analysis. The implications of these results and potential future studies are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Dor Mizrahi & Ilan Laufer & Inon Zuckerman, 2020. "Collectivism-individualism: Strategic behavior in tacit coordination games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-13, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0226929
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226929
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226929&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0226929?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Karla Hoff & Mayuresh Kshetramade, 2008. "Spite and Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 494-499, May.
    2. Valerio Capraro & Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-Gonzalez, 2017. "Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares: Evidence from US and India," Post-Print halshs-01439121, HAL.
    3. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195300574.
    4. Rebecca LeFebvre & Volker Franke, 2013. "Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-Making," Societies, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, March.
    5. Valerio Capraro & Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-González, 2017. "Deliberation favours social efficiency by making people disregard their relative shares : evidence from USA and India," Post-Print hal-02311978, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Zhuyu Li & Gari Walkowitz, 2024. "Fairness Deliberations and Fair Allocations in Symmetric and Asymmetric Bargaining–An Experimental Study on Group Decisions in Germany and China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(6), pages 1429-1469, December.

    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. Christian P Janssen & Emma Everaert & Heleen M A Hendriksen & Ghislaine L Mensing & Laura J Tigchelaar & Hendrik Nunner, 2019. "The influence of rewards on (sub-)optimal interleaving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-25, March.
    2. Brice Corgnet, 2023. "An Experimental Test of Algorithmic Dismissals," Working Papers 2302, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    3. Hanna Fromell & Daniele Nosenzo & Trudy Owens, 2020. "Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 979-1001, December.
    4. Sascha Grehl & Andreas Tutić, 2022. "Intuition, reflection, and prosociality: Evidence from a field experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Alireza Mahboub-Ahari & Abolghasem Pourreza & Ali Akbari Sari & Trevor A Sheldon & Maryam Moeeni, 2019. "Private and social time preference for health outcomes: A general population survey in Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. Amador-Hidalgo, Luis & Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & García-Muñoz, Teresa & Hernández-Román, Ana, 2021. "Cognitive abilities and risk-taking: Errors, not preferences," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    7. Neyse, Levent & Fossen, Frank M. & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2023. "Cognitive reflection and 2D:4D: Evidence from a large population sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 288-307.
    8. Antonio Cabrales & Antonio M. Espin & Praveen Kujal & Stephen Rassenti, 2021. "Trustors' Disregard for Trustees Deciding Intuitively or Reflectively: Three Experiments on Time Constraints," Working Papers 21-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    9. Antonio M. Espin & Valerio Capraro & Brice Corgnet & Simon Gachter & Roberto Hernan-Gonzalez & Praveen Kujal & Stephen Rassenti, 2021. "Differences in Cognitive Reflection Mediate Gender Differences in Social Preferences," Working Papers 21-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Karla Hoff & Mayuresh Kshetramade & Ernst Fehr, 2011. "Caste and Punishment: the Legacy of Caste Culture in Norm Enforcement," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 449-475, November.
    11. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    12. Laruelle, Annick & Valenciano, Federico, 2008. "Noncooperative foundations of bargaining power in committees and the Shapley-Shubik index," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 341-353, May.
    13. Ian Gregory‐Smith, 2021. "Wages And Labor Productivity: Evidence From Injuries In The National Football League," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(2), pages 829-847, April.
    14. Cabeza Martínez, Begoña, 2023. "Social preferences, support for redistribution, and attitudes towards vulnerable groups," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    16. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Urmimala Sen, 2020. "Cultural Identities And Resolution Of Social Dilemmas," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(1), pages 49-66, January.
    17. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    18. Bauer, Michal & Chytilová, Julie & Miguel, Edward, 2020. "Using survey questions to measure preferences: Lessons from an experimental validation in Kenya," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    20. van Koten, Silvester & Ortmann, Andreas, 2013. "Structural versus behavioral remedies in the deregulation of electricity markets: An experimental investigation motivated by policy concerns," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 256-265.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0226929. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.