Counterpunishment revisited: an evolutionary approach

Evolutionary game theory has shown that in environments characterised by a social-dilemma situation punishment may be an adaptive behaviour. Experimental evidence closely corresponds to this finding but yields contradictory results on the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment if players are allowed to retaliate against their punishers. The present study sets out to examine the question of whether cooperation will still be part of an evolutionary stable strategy if we allow for counterpunishment opportunities in a theoretic model and tries to reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings from the laboratory. We find that the apparent contradictions can be explained by a difference in the number of retaliation stages employed (one vs many) and even small differences in the degree of retaliativeness.Public goods; Strong reciprocity; Conformism; Counter-punishment; Evolution of behavior

On the Nature of Reciprocity: Evidence from the Ultimatum Reciprocity Measure

We experimentally show that current models of reciprocity are in- complete in a systematic way using a new variant of the ultimatum game that provides second-movers with a marginal-cost-free punish- ment option. For a substantial proportion of the population, the de- gree of rst-mover unkindness determines the severity of punishment actions even when marginal costs are absent. The proportion of these subjects strongly depends on a treatment variation: higher xed costs of punishment lead to harsher responses. The fractions of purely self- ish and inequity-averse participants are small and stable. Among the variety of reciprocity models, only one accommodates (rather than predicts) parts of our ndings. The treatment e ect is unaccounted for. We discuss ways of incorporating our ndings into the existing models.Distributional fairness, experiments, intention-based fair- ness, reciprocity, ultimatum bargaining

Incentive Effects of Funding Contracts: An Experiment

We examine the incentive effects of funding contracts on entrepreneurial effort decisions and allocative efficiency. We experiment with four types of contracts (standard debt contract, outside equity, non-monotonic contract, full-subsidy contract) that differ in the structure of investor repayment and, therefore, in the incentives for entrepreneurial effort provision. Theoretically the replacement of a standard debt contract by a repayment-equivalent non-monotonic contract reduces effort distortions and increases efficiency. We test this non-monotonic-contracts hypothesis in the laboratory as well. Our results reveal that the incentive effects of funding contracts need to be experienced before they reect in observed behavior. With sufficient experience observed behavior is consistent with the theoretical predictions and supports the non-monotonic-contracts hypothesis: we find that the replacement of a standard debt contract by a repayment-neutral non-monotonic contract increases entrepreneurial income by 170% and total surplus by 30% in our setting.hidden information, funding contracts, incentives, experiment, standard debt contract, non-monotonic contract

Counterpunishment revisited: an evolutionary approach

Evolutionary game theory has shown that in environments characterised by a social-dilemma situation punishment may be an adaptive behaviour. Experimental evidence closely corresponds to this finding but yields contradictory results on the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment if players are allowed to retaliate against their punishers. The present study sets out to examine the question of whether cooperation will still be part of an evolutionary stable strategy if we allow for counterpunishment opportunities in a theoretic model and tries to reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings from the laboratory. We find that the apparent contradictions can be explained by a difference in the number of retaliation stages employed (one vs many) and even small differences in the degree of retaliativeness

Counterpunishment revisited: an evolutionary approach

Evolutionary game theory has shown that in environments characterised by a social-dilemma situation punishment may be an adaptive behaviour. Experimental evidence closely corresponds to this finding but yields contradictory results on the cooperation-enhancing effect of punishment if players are allowed to retaliate against their punishers. The present study sets out to examine the question of whether cooperation will still be part of an evolutionary stable strategy if we allow for counterpunishment opportunities in a theoretic model and tries to reconcile the seemingly contradictory findings from the laboratory. We find that the apparent contradictions can be explained by a difference in the number of retaliation stages employed (one vs many) and even small differences in the degree of retaliativeness

Beliefs about others: A striking example of information neglect

In many games of imperfect information, players can make Bayesian inferences about other players’ types based on the information that is contained in their own type. Several behavioral theories of belief-updating even start from the assumption that players project their own type onto others also when it is not rational. We investigate such inferences in a simple environment that is a vital ingredient of numerous game-theoretic models and experiments, in which types are drawn from one out of two states of the world and participants have to guess the type of another participant. We find little evidence for irrational over-projection. Instead, between 50% and 70% of the participants in our experiment completely neglect the information contained in their own type and base their beliefs and choices only on the prior probabilities. Using several experimental interventions, we show that this striking neglect of information is very robust

Non-monotonic Repayment Contracts are Superior: An Experimental Approach

We experimentally investigate if theoretically superior non-monotonic repayment contracts yield superior results in the laboratory. We find replacing standard debt contracts with repayment-equivalent non-monotonic contracts increases entrepreneurial income by 170% and total surplus by 30%.financial economics and financial management ;

Institution design in social dilemmas: How to design if you must?

Considerable experimental evidence has been collected on how to solve the public-good dilemma. In a 'first generation' of experiments, this was done by presenting subjects with a pre-specified game out of a huge variety of rules. A 'second generation' of experiments introduced subjects to two different environments and had subjects choose between those. The present study is part of a 'third generation', asking subjects not only to choose between two environments but to design their own rule sets for the public-good problem. Whereas preceding 'third-generation' experiments had subjects design and improve their strategies for a specified game, this study is the first to make an attempt at answering the question of how people would shape their environment to solve the public-good dilemma were they given full discretion over the rules of the game. We explore this question of endogenous institution design in an iterated design-and-play procedure. We observe a strong usage of punishment and redistribution components, which diminishes over time. Instead, subjects successfully contextualize the situation. Interestingly, feedback on fellow-players’ individual behavior tends to be rendered opaque. On average, rules do improve with respect to the welfare they elicit, albeit only to a limited degree

Institution design in social dilemmas: How to design if you must?

Considerable experimental evidence has been collected on how to solve the public-good dilemma. In a 'first generation' of experiments, this was done by presenting subjects with a pre-specified game out of a huge variety of rules. A 'second generation' of experiments introduced subjects to two different environments and had subjects choose between those. The present study is part of a 'third generation', asking subjects not only to choose between two environments but to design their own rule sets for the public-good problem. Whereas preceding 'third-generation' experiments had subjects design and improve their strategies for a specified game, this study is the first to make an attempt at answering the question of how people would shape their environment to solve the public-good dilemma were they given full discretion over the rules of the game. We explore this question of endogenous institution design in an iterated design-and-play procedure. We observe a strong usage of punishment and redistribution components, which diminishes over time. Instead, subjects successfully contextualize the situation. Interestingly, feedback on fellow-players’ individual behavior tends to be rendered opaque. On average, rules do improve with respect to the welfare they elicit, albeit only to a limited degree