Experimental Economics

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 35–51 | Cite as

Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment

  • Ronald Bosman
  • Heike Hennig-Schmidt
  • Frans van Winden


Most studies that compare individual and group behavior neglect the in-group decision making process. This paper explores the decision making process within groups in a strategic setting: a two player power-to-take experiment. Discussions preceding group decisions are video taped and analyzed. We find the following: (1) no impact of the group setting as such on individual behavior; (2) heterogeneity of individual types; (3) perceptions of fairness are hardly discussed and are prone to the self-serving bias; (4) groups ignore the decision rule of other groups and typically view them as if they were single agents. (5) We also show that to explain group outcomes two factors have to be taken into account that are often neglected: the distribution of individual types over groups and the decision rules that groups use to arrive at their decision.


Groups Decision rule Fairness Experiment Video 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andreoni, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2003). What do bargainers’ preferences look like? Experiments with a convex ultimatum game. American Economic Review, 93, 672–685Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse. The role of self-serving bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109–126Google Scholar
  3. Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H.T. Reis and Ch. M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 138–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UK.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, G. E., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or Less) consistent than individuals?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup Conflict. Individual, Group, and Collective Interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game. Are groups more rational players? Experimental Economics, 1, 101–108Google Scholar
  8. Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more rational players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bornstein, G., Budescu, D. V., Kugler, T., & Selten, R. (2005). Repeated price competition between individuals and between teams. Working paper. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  10. Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional Hazard in a Power-to-Take Experiment. The Economic Journal, 112, 146–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bottom, W. P., Krishna, L., & Miller, G. J. (2002). Propagation of individual bias through group judgment. Error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brosig, J., Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (2003). The effect of communication media on cooperation. German Economic Review 4, 217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Cason, T. N., & Mui, V. -L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107, 1465–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games. The American Economic Review, 95, 477–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corden, R. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective. Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative-Research, 1, 347–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (2002). Barking up the wrong tree. Are small groups rational agents? Working Paper. University of ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  18. Dahl, G. B., & Ransom, M. R. (1999). Does where you stand depend on where you sit? Tithing donations and self-serving bias. American Economic Review, 89, 703–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction. Theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125Google Scholar
  20. van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., & van Winden, F. (2001). Incentive systems in a real effort experiment. European Economic Review, 45, 187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings and video. Cognitive and motivational components in preschool children’s suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 129–146Google Scholar
  22. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  25. Goren, H., & Bornstein, G. (2000). The effects of intragroup communication on intergroup cooperation in the repeated intergroup prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 700–719Google Scholar
  26. Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, Th. R. (2000). An experimental study of jury decision rules. American Political Science Review, 94, 407–423Google Scholar
  27. Hennig-Schmidt, H. (1999). Bargaining in a video experiment. Determinants of boundedly rational behavior New York: Springer 1999Google Scholar
  28. Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2002). The impact of fairness on decision making–An analysis of different video experiments. In F. Andersson, and H. Holm (eds.), Experimental Economics. Financial Markets. Auctions. and Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 185–210Google Scholar
  29. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior. American Economic Review, 86, L653–60Google Scholar
  30. Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Bias in Judgment. Comparing Individuals and Groups, Psychological Review, 103, 687–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in Jurors vs. Bias in Juries. New Evidence from the SDS Perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2002). Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making process in gift-exchange experiments. Papers on Strategic Interaction. 27/2002. Max-Planck-Institute for Research into Economic SystemsGoogle Scholar
  33. Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The ‘Decision Maker’ matters. Individual versus team behavior in experimental ‘Beauty-Contest’ games. Economic Journal, 115, 200–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laughlin, P. R. (1999). Collective induction. Twelve postulates. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 80, 50–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levine, J. M. (1999). Transforming individuals into groups. Some hallmarks of the SDS approach to small group research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. The Economic Journal, 109, F35–F45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Messick, D. M., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Ultimatum bargaining with a group. Underestimating the importance of the decision rule. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orbell, J. M., Dawes, R. M., & van der Kragt, A. J. C. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of personality and social psychology 5, 811–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis. Theoretical background. In J.T.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: The British Psychological Society, 125–140Google Scholar
  40. Raab, Ph., B. C. Schipper (2004). Cournot Competition between Teams. An experimental study. Bonn graduate school of economics. University of Bonn. Discussion Paper No. 13/2004.Google Scholar
  41. Ratcliff, D. (2003). Video methods in qualitative research. In P. M. Camic J.E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley (eds.), Qualitative research in psychology. expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association 113–129Google Scholar
  42. Robert, C., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 256–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek B. (2005). Teams take the better risk. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  44. Rutström E. E. L., & Williams, M. B. (2000). Entitlements and fairness. An experimental study of distributive preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stasser, G. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory. Models of group influence, Competitive model testing, and prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wildshut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, Ch. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind. A quantitative review of the interindividual–Intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin. 129. 5, 698–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Bosman
    • 1
  • Heike Hennig-Schmidt
    • 2
  • Frans van Winden
    • 3
  1. 1.Monetary and Economic Policy DepartmentDe Nederlandsche BankAmsterdam
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Laboratorium für experimentelle WirtschaftsforschungBonn UniversityBonnGermany
  3. 3.CREED/Department of EconomicsUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations