IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v47y2003i3p326-339.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between-Group Communication and Conflict Resolution in Assurance and Chicken Games

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Bornstein

    (Department of Psychology and Center for the Study of Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • Zohar Gilula

    (Department of Psychology and Center for the Study of Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Abstract

Two types of intergroup conflicts modeled as team games, a game of assurance where the groups' incentive to compete is purely fear and a game of chicken where the groups' incentive to compete is purely greed, are examined. The games involved competition between two 3-person groups. The players discussed the game with other in-group members, then met with the members of the out-group for a between-group discussion, and finally had a within-group discussion before deciding individually whether to contribute to their group's collective effort vis-Ã -vis the out-group. Results show that all groups playing the assurance game achieved the collectively efficient outcome of zero contribution, whereas groups playing the chicken game maintained a highly inefficient contribution rate of 78%. Communication between groups is highly effective in bringing about a peaceful resolution if the conflict is motivated by fear and useless if the conflict is motivated by greed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Bornstein & Zohar Gilula, 2003. "Between-Group Communication and Conflict Resolution in Assurance and Chicken Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 47(3), pages 326-339, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:47:y:2003:i:3:p:326-339
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002703252367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002703252367
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002703252367?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. Van Huyck, John B & Battalio, Raymond C & Beil, Richard O, 1990. "Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 234-248, March.
    2. Cooper, Russell, et al, 1990. "Selection Criteria in Coordination Games: Some Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 218-233, March.
    3. Thomas Palfrey & Howard Rosenthal, 1983. "A strategic calculus of voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 7-53, January.
    4. Russell Cooper & Douglas V. DeJong & Robert Forsythe & Thomas W. Ross, 1992. "Communication in Coordination Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 739-771.
    5. Carroll, John S. & Bazerman, Max H. & Maury, Robin, 1988. "Negotiator cognitions: A descriptive approach to negotiators' understanding of their opponents," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 352-370, June.
    6. Snidal, Duncan, 1991. "Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 701-726, September.
    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. Iida Yoshio & Schwieren Christiane, 2016. "Contributing for Myself, but Free riding for My Group?," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 36-47, February.

    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. Sheremeta, Roman, 2009. "Essays on Experimental Investigation of Lottery Contests," MPRA Paper 49888, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2011. "Perfect-Substitutes, Best-Shot, and Weakest-Link Contests between Groups," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 27, pages 5-32.
    3. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    4. Olga Shurchkov, 2013. "Coordination and learning in dynamic global games: experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 313-334, September.
    5. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stéphane Luchini & Jason F. Shogren & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2018. "Coordination with communication under oath," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 627-649, September.
    6. Castillo, Marco & Dickinson, David L., 2022. "Sleep restriction increases coordination failure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 358-370.
    7. Ilse Lindenlaub & Anja Prummer, 2014. "Gender, Social Networks And Performance," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1461, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Yoshio Kamijo & Hiroki Ozono & Kazumi Shimizu, 2016. "Overcoming coordination failure using a mechanism based on gradualism and endogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 202-217, March.
    9. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2006:i:1:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Masaki Aoyagi & Naoko Nishimura & Yoshitaka Okano, 2017. "Efficiency and Voluntary Redistribution under Inequality," ISER Discussion Paper 0992, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    11. Poulsen, Anders & Poulsen, Odile, 2010. "Prisoner's Dilemma payoffs and the evolution of co-operative preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 158-162, April.
    12. Giovanna Devetag & Hykel Hosni & Giacomo Sillari, 2012. "You Better Play 7: Mutual versus Common Knowledge of Advice in a Weak-link Experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1201, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    13. Cason, Timothy N. & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Zhang, Jingjing, 2012. "Communication and efficiency in competitive coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 26-43.
    14. Arifovic, Jasmina & Evans, George W. & Kostyshyna, Olena, 2020. "Are sunspots learnable? An experimental investigation in a simple macroeconomic model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    15. Sujoy Chakravarty, 2003. "Experimental Evidence on Product Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 23(3_4), pages 233-254, December.
    16. Johne Bone & Michalis Drouvelis & Indrajit Ray, 2013. "Coordination in 2 x 2 Games by Following Recommendations from Correlated Equilibria," Discussion Papers 12-04, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    17. Philippe Février & Laurent Linnemer, 2002. "Strengths of the "Weakest Link"?," Working Papers 2002-24, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    18. Gary Bornstein & Danny Mingelgrin & Christel Rutte, 1996. "The Effects of Within-Group Communication on Group Decision and Individual Choice in the Assurance and Chicken Team Games," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(3), pages 486-501, September.
    19. Romero, Julian, 2015. "The effect of hysteresis on equilibrium selection in coordination games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 88-105.
    20. Dal Bó, Pedro & Fréchette, Guillaume R. & Kim, Jeongbin, 2021. "The determinants of efficient behavior in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 352-368.
    21. Straub, Paul G., 1995. "Risk dominance and coordination failures in static games," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 339-363.

    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:sae:jocore:v:47:y:2003:i:3:p:326-339. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.