未能利用潜在的有效联络点:突出重点会妨碍协调不同的行动

IF 1 3区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS Games and Economic Behavior Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.geb.2024.07.010
Uri Gneezy, Yuval Rottenstreich
{"title":"未能利用潜在的有效联络点:突出重点会妨碍协调不同的行动","authors":"Uri Gneezy,&nbsp;Yuval Rottenstreich","doi":"10.1016/j.geb.2024.07.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Are people skillful in utilizing potential focal points? We find a class of situations for which the answer is negative: the presence of prominent actions appears to stymie the use of distinct actions for coordination. Across several experimental games, we consistently observe that players readily coordinate on a categorically distinct action when all available actions are non-prominent but not when some actions are prominent. For instance, given the action set {Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Tianjin}, most players select the Chinese city Tianjin. Yet, given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Tianjin}, they are roughly equally likely to select either American president and unlikely to select Tianjin, and given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Shanghai}, their choices are distributed approximately uniformly. The observation that prominence stymies reliance on distinctiveness informs cognitive hierarchy and team reasoning theories of how people recognize focality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48291,"journal":{"name":"Games and Economic Behavior","volume":"148 ","pages":"Pages 68-81"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001040/pdfft?md5=fc4dcefe3318a3e5901246329c7860ee&pid=1-s2.0-S0899825624001040-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Failing to utilize potentially effective focal points: Prominence can stymie coordination on distinct actions\",\"authors\":\"Uri Gneezy,&nbsp;Yuval Rottenstreich\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.geb.2024.07.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Are people skillful in utilizing potential focal points? We find a class of situations for which the answer is negative: the presence of prominent actions appears to stymie the use of distinct actions for coordination. Across several experimental games, we consistently observe that players readily coordinate on a categorically distinct action when all available actions are non-prominent but not when some actions are prominent. For instance, given the action set {Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Tianjin}, most players select the Chinese city Tianjin. Yet, given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Tianjin}, they are roughly equally likely to select either American president and unlikely to select Tianjin, and given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Shanghai}, their choices are distributed approximately uniformly. The observation that prominence stymies reliance on distinctiveness informs cognitive hierarchy and team reasoning theories of how people recognize focality.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Games and Economic Behavior\",\"volume\":\"148 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 68-81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001040/pdfft?md5=fc4dcefe3318a3e5901246329c7860ee&pid=1-s2.0-S0899825624001040-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Games and Economic Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001040\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Games and Economic Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001040","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们是否善于利用潜在的焦点?我们发现有一类情况的答案是否定的:突出行动的存在似乎阻碍了利用独特行动进行协调。在几个实验游戏中,我们一致观察到,当所有可用的行动都不突出时,玩家很容易在一个分类独特的行动上进行协调,但当一些行动突出时,玩家就不会这样做。例如,在行动集{富兰克林-皮尔斯、詹姆斯-布坎南、天津}中,大多数玩家会选择中国城市天津。然而,在给定{林肯、乔治-华盛顿、天津}的情况下,他们选择其中一位美国总统的可能性大致相同,而不太可能选择天津;而在给定{林肯、乔治-华盛顿、上海}的情况下,他们的选择分布大致均匀。突出性会阻碍对独特性的依赖,这一观察结果为认知层次和团队推理理论提供了关于人们如何识别突出性的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Failing to utilize potentially effective focal points: Prominence can stymie coordination on distinct actions
Are people skillful in utilizing potential focal points? We find a class of situations for which the answer is negative: the presence of prominent actions appears to stymie the use of distinct actions for coordination. Across several experimental games, we consistently observe that players readily coordinate on a categorically distinct action when all available actions are non-prominent but not when some actions are prominent. For instance, given the action set {Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Tianjin}, most players select the Chinese city Tianjin. Yet, given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Tianjin}, they are roughly equally likely to select either American president and unlikely to select Tianjin, and given {Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Shanghai}, their choices are distributed approximately uniformly. The observation that prominence stymies reliance on distinctiveness informs cognitive hierarchy and team reasoning theories of how people recognize focality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: Games and Economic Behavior facilitates cross-fertilization between theories and applications of game theoretic reasoning. It consistently attracts the best quality and most creative papers in interdisciplinary studies within the social, biological, and mathematical sciences. Most readers recognize it as the leading journal in game theory. Research Areas Include: • Game theory • Economics • Political science • Biology • Computer science • Mathematics • Psychology
期刊最新文献
Understanding dynamic interactions Seemingly baseless discrimination The economics of excuses: Job market cheap talk with pre-employment tests Strategic ambiguity in global games Regularized Bayesian best response learning in finite games
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1