Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-17T04:36:14.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recommended play and performance bonuses in the minimum effort coordination game

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Ananish Chaudhuri  and
Tirnud Paichayontvijit
Ananish Chaudhuri*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Auckland, 655 Owen G Glenn Building Level 6, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland, New Zealand
Tirnud Paichayontvijit*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Auckland, 655 Owen G Glenn Building Level 6, 12 Grafton Road, Auckland, New Zealand
*
e-mail: a.chaudhuri@auckland.ac.nz
e-mail: t.paichayontvijit@auckland.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use experiments to investigate the efficacy of recommended play and performance bonuses in resolving coordination failures in a stag-hunt type coordination game with multiple Pareto-ranked equilibria, often referred to as a “weak link” game. Participants routinely find it difficult to coordinate to the payoff-dominant outcome in such games. We look at performance in both fixed and randomly re-matched groups. A recommendation to the payoff-dominant outcome is successful in resolving coordination failures with fixed groups but only when this recommendation is “common knowledge” in the sense that all members of the group receive the same message and it is read out loud for everyone to hear. Resolving coordination failures is harder with randomly re-matched groups and the greatest success is achieved only upon payment of a performance bonus.

Keywords

Weak-link gamesCoordinationRecommendationsPerformance BonusExperiments

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior M52: Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects L23: Organization of Production C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 346 - 363
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-010-9245-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Antonopoulos, C., Chau, L., Chaudhuri, A., Hahn, E., & Min, S. (2002). Efficiency breakthrough: conversion from almost common to common knowledge in the minimum effort game. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA, May 2002.Google Scholar
Bangun, L., Chaudhuri, A., Prak, P. & Zhou, C. (2006). Common and almost common knowledge of credible recommendations in a coordination game. Economics Bulletin, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. (2006a). A change would do you good … an experimental study on how to overcome coordination failure in organizations. American Economic Review, 96(3), 667–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. (2006b). Observability and overcoming coordination failures in organizations: an experimental study. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Cooper, D. (2007). It's what you say and not what you pay: an experimental study of manager-employee relationships in overcoming coordination failure. Journal of the European Economic Association, 5(6), 1223–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & MacLeod, W.B. (1995). Equilibrium selection in experimental games with recommended play. Games and Economic Behavior, 11(1), 36–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, A. (2009). Experiments in economics: playing fair with money. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., Schotter, A., & Sopher, B. (2009). Talking ourselves to efficiency: coordination in intergenerational minimum games with private, almost common and common knowledge of advice. Economic Journal, 119, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwe, M. (2001). Rational ritual: culture, coordination and common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, K., & Sefton, M. (2001). Repetition and signalling: experimental evidence from games with efficient equilibria. Economics Letters, 70(3), 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R., DeJong, D., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. (1990). Selection criteria in coordination games: experimental results. American Economic Review, 80(1), 218–233.Google Scholar
Devetag, G., & Ortmann, A. (2007). When and why? A critical review of coordination failure in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 10(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., & Holt, C. (2001). Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1402–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamman, J., Rick, S., & Weber, R. (2007). Solving coordination problems with ‘all-or-none’ group level incentives. Experimental Economics, 10(3), 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C. (2009). University of Virginia Veconlab. Online experiments available at: http://veconlab.econ.virginia.edu/admin.htm.Google Scholar
Knez, M., & Simester, D. (2001). Firm-wide incentives and mutual monitoring at Continental Airlines. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(4), 743–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Huyck, J., Battalio, R., & Beil, R. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–248.Google Scholar
Van Huyck, J., Gillette, A., & Battalio, R. (1992). Credible assignments in coordination games. Games and Economic Behavior, 4(4), 606–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chaudhuri and Paichayontvijit supplementary material

Appendix to “Recommended Play and Performance Bonuses in the Minimum Effort Coordination Game” by Ananish Chaudhuri and Tirnud Paichayontvijit
Download Chaudhuri and Paichayontvijit supplementary material(File)
File 52.2 KB