IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcdx/2021-09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social closeness can help, harm and be irrelevant in solving pure coordination problems

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Gaechter

    (University of Nottingham, IZA Bonn)

  • Chris Starmer

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Christian Thoeni

    (University of Lausanne)

  • Fabio Tufano

    (University of Nottingham)

  • Till O Weber

    (Newcastle University)

Abstract

Experimental research has shown that ordinary people often perform remarkably well in solving coordination games that involve no conflicts of interest. While most experiments in the past studied such coordination games among socially distant anonymous players, here we study behaviour in a set of two player coordination games and compare the outcomes depending on whether the players are socially close or socially distant. We find that social closeness influences prospects for coordination, but whether it helps, harms or has no impact on coordination probabilities, depends on the structure of the game.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Christian Thoeni & Fabio Tufano & Till O Weber, 2021. "Social closeness can help, harm and be irrelevant in solving pure coordination problems," Discussion Papers 2021-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2021-09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/papers/cedex-discussion-paper-2021-09.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent P. Crawford & Uri Gneezy & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2008. "The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1443-1458, September.
    2. Nicholas Bardsley & Judith Mehta & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 2010. "Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory "versus" Team Reasoning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(543), pages 40-79, March.
    3. Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap & David Rojo Arjona & Robert Sugden, 2017. "Coordination when there are restricted and unrestricted options," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 107-129, June.
    4. Mehta, Judith & Starmer, Chris & Sugden, Robert, 1994. "The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(3), pages 658-673, June.
    5. Alessandro Sontuoso & Sudeep Bhatia, 2021. "A notion of prominence for games with natural‐language labels," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 283-312, January.
    6. Michael Bacharach, 2006. "The Hi-Lo Paradox, from Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory," Introductory Chapters, in: Natalie Gold & Robert Sugden (ed.),Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton University Press.
    7. Simon Gächter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2015. "Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Swee-Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Jeremy Larner, 2019. "Is knowledge curse or blessing in pure coordination problems?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(1), pages 123-146, July.
    9. Lorenz Goette & David Huffman & Stephan Meier & Matthias Sutter, 2012. "Competition Between Organizational Groups: Its Impact on Altruistic and Antisocial Motivations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 948-960, May.
    10. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    11. Abele, Susanne & Stasser, Garold & Chartier, Christopher, 2014. "Use of social knowledge in tacit coordination: Social focal points," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 23-33.
    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. Simon Gaechter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2022. "Measuring "Group Cohesion" to Reveal the Power of Social Relationships in Team Production," CESifo Working Paper Series 9936, CESifo.

    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. Rojo Arjona, David & Sitzia, Stefania & Zheng, Jiwei, 2022. "Overcoming coordination failure in games with focal points: An experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 505-523.
    2. Alessandro Sontuoso & Sudeep Bhatia, 2021. "A notion of prominence for games with natural‐language labels," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(1), pages 283-312, January.
    3. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    4. Dai, Zhixin & Zheng, Jiwei & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2024. "Theories of reasoning and focal point play with a matched non-student sample," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    6. Shaun P. Hargreaves Heap & David Rojo Arjona & Robert Sugden, 2017. "Coordination when there are restricted and unrestricted options," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 107-129, June.
    7. Marco Faillo & Alessandra Smerilli & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Can a single theory explain coordination? An experiment on alternative modes of reasoning and the conditions under which they are used," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    8. Stefan Penczynski & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2020. "Compound games, focal points, and the framing of collective and individual interests," Working Papers 305138214, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    9. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "Group behaviour in tacit coordination games with focal points: An experimental investigation," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-02R, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Zhixin Dai & Jiwei Zheng & Daniel John Zizzo, 2019. "Theories Of Reasoning and Focal Point Play With A Non-Student Sample," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-05, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    11. Elten, Jonas van & Penczynski, Stefan P., 2020. "Coordination games with asymmetric payoffs: An experimental study with intra-group communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 158-188.
    12. Sitzia, Stefania & Zheng, Jiwei, 2019. "Group behaviour in tacit coordination games with focal points – an experimental investigation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 461-478.
    13. David Rojo Arjona & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2021. "Overcoming coordination failure in games with focal points," Working Papers 335109305, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    14. Lian Xue & Stefania Sitzia & Theodore L. Turocy, 2017. "What’s ours is ours: An experiment on the efficiency of bargaining over the fruits of joint activity," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 17-12, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    15. Stefan Penczynski & Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2023. "Decomposed games, focal points, and the framing of collective and individual interests," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 20-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    16. Faillo, Marco & Smerilli, Alessandra & Sugden, Robert, 2017. "Bounded best-response and collective-optimality reasoning in coordination games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 317-335.
    17. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Francesco Fallucchi & Daniele Nosenzo, 2022. "The coordinating power of social norms," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 1-25, February.
    19. Irenaeus Wolff, 2023. "Heuristic Centered-Belief Players," TWI Research Paper Series 128, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    20. Alessandra Smerilli, 2012. "We-thinking and vacillation between frames: filling a gap in Bacharach’s theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 539-560, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Coordination; Lab-in-the-field experiment; Oneness; Salience; Social closeness; Social distance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:not:notcdx:2021-09. 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: Jose V Guinot Saporta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.html .

    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.