Experimental Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 173–199 | Cite as

For those about to talk we salute you: an experimental study of credible deviations and ACDC

  • Adrian de Groot Ruiz
  • Theo Offerman
  • Sander Onderstal
Article
  • 261 Downloads

Abstract

We test the Average Credible Deviation Criterion (ACDC), a stability measure and refinement for cheap talk equilibria introduced in De Groot Ruiz et al. (Equilibrium selection in cheap talk games: ACDC rocks when other criteria remain silent, Working paper, University of Amsterdam 2012a). ACDC has been shown to be predictive under general conditions and to organize data well in previous experiments meant to test other concepts. In a new experimental setting, we provide the first systematic test of whether and to which degree credible deviations matter for the stability of cheap talk equilibria. Our principal experimental result is that in a setting where existing concepts are silent, credible deviations matter and matter gradually, as predicted by ACDC.

Keywords

Cheap talk Refinement Selection Experiment Neologism proofness Announcement proofness ACDC 

JEL Classification

C72 C92 D82 D83 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank seminar participants at Caltech, New York University and the University of Amsterdam. Financial support from the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO-VICI 453-03-606) and from the Amsterdam Research Priority Area Behavioral Economics is gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

10683_2013_9362_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (519 kb)
(PDF 304 kB)

References

  1. Agranov, M., & Schotter, A. (2011). Language and leadership: an experimental study of ambiguity and vagueness in the announcement game. Working paper, New York University. Google Scholar
  2. Agranov, M., & Schotter, A. (2012). Ignorance is bliss: an experimental study of the use of ambiguity and vagueness in the coordination games with asymmetric payoffs. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4, 77–103. Google Scholar
  3. Blume, A., & Sobel, J. (1995). Communication-proof equilibria in cheap-talk games. Journal of Economic Theory, 65, 359–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blume, A., Kim, Y.-G., & Sobel, J. (1993). Evolutionary Stability in Games of Communication. Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 547–575. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Kim, Y.-G., & Sprinkle, G. B. (1998). Experimental evidence on the evolution of meaning of messages in sender-receiver games. The American Economic Review, 88, 1323–1340. Google Scholar
  6. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Kim, Y.-G., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2001). Evolution of communication with partial common interest. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 79–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai, H., & Wang, J. T. (2006). Overcommunication in strategic information transmission games. Games and Economic Behavior, 56, 7–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cason, T. N. (1995). Cheap talk price signaling in laboratory markets. Information Economics and Policy, 7, 183–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness, G. (2000). Self-serving cheap talk: a test of Aumann’s conjecture. Games and Economic Behavior, 33, 177–194. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74, 1579–1601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, Y., Kartik, N., & Sobel, J. (2008). Selecting cheap talk equilibria. Econometrica, 76, 117–136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coles, P., Kushnir, A., & Niederle, M. (2013). Preference signaling in matching markets. Am. Econ. J. Microecon. 5, 99–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford, V. (1998). A survey of experiments on communication via cheap talk. Journal of Economic Theory, 78, 286–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crawford, V., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50, 1431–1451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Croson, R., Boles, T., & Murnighan, J. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 141–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daniel, T. E., Seale, D. A., & Rapoport, A. (1998). Strategic play and adaptive learning in the sealed-bid bargaining mechanism. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 133–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, D. D., & Holt, C. A. (1988). Conspiracies and secret discounts in laboratory markets. The Economic Journal, 108, 736–756. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Groot Ruiz, A. W., Offerman, T., & Onderstal, S. (2012a). Equilibrium selection in cheap talk games: ACDC rocks when other criteria remain silent. Working paper, University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  19. De Groot Ruiz, A. W., Offerman, T., & Onderstal, S. (2012b). Power and the privilege of clarity: an analysis of bargaining power and information transmission. Working paper, University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar
  20. DellaVigna, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2010). Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annual Review of Economics, 2, 643–669. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dickhaut, J. W., McCabe, K. A., & Mukherji, A. (1995). An experimental study of strategic information transmission. Economic Theory, 6, 389–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellingsen, T., & Johannesson, M. (2004). Promises, threats and fairness. The Economic Journal, 114, 397–420. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farrell, J. (1993). Meaning and credibility in cheap-talk games. Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 514–531. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrell, J., & Gibbons, R. (1989). Cheap talk can matter in bargaining. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 221–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Forsythe, R., Kennan, J., & Sopher, B. (1991). An experimental analysis of strikes in bargaining games with one-sided private information. The American Economic Review, 81, 253–278. Google Scholar
  27. Gilligan, T. W., & Krehbiel, K. (1990). Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 531–564. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gneezy, U. (2005). Deception: the role of consequences. The American Economic Review, 95, 384–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kartik, N., Ottaviani, M., & Squintani, F. (2007). Credulity, lies and costly talk. Journal of Economic Theory, 134, 93–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kohlberg, E., & Mertens, J.-F. (1986). On the strategic stability of equilibria. Econometrica, 54, 1003–1037. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lundquist, T., Ellingsen, T., Gribbe, E., & Johannesson, M. (2009). The aversion to lying. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 70, 81–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthews, S. A. (1989). Veto threats: rhetoric in a bargaining game. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 347–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matthews, S. A., & Postlewaite, A. (1989). Pre-play communication in two-person sealed-bid double auctions. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 238–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthews, S. A., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Postlewaite, A. (1991). Refining cheap-talk equilibria. Journal of Economic Theory, 55, 247–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1995). Quantal response equilibrium for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1998). Quantal response equilibrium for extensive form games. Experimental Economics, 1, 9–41. Google Scholar
  37. Miller, R. M., & Plott, C. A. (1985). Product quality signaling in experimental markets. Econometrica, 53, 837–872. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morgan, J., & Stocken, P. C. (2003). An analysis of stock recommendations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 34, 183–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris, S. (2001). Political correctness. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 231–265. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myerson, R. B. (1989). Credible negotiation statements and coherent plans. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 264–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van der Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rabin, M. (1990). Communication between rational agents. Journal of Economic Theory, 51, 144–170. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rabin, M., & Sobel, J. (1996). Deviations, dynamics and equilibrium refinements. Journal of Economic Theory, 68, 1–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Radner, R., & Schotter, A. (1989). The sealed bid mechanism: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Theory, 48, 179–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rapoport, A., & Fuller, M. A. (1998). Coordination in Noncooperative Three-person Games under Different Information Structures. Group Decision and Negotiation, 7(4), 363–382. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rapoport, A., Erev, I., & Zwick, R. (1995). An experimental study of buyer-seller negotiation with one-sided incomplete information and time discounting. Management Science, 41, 377–394. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sánchez-Pagés, S., & Vorsatz, M. (2007). An experimental study of truth-telling in a sender-receiver game. Games and Economic Behavior, 61, 86–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sánchez-Pages, S., & Vorsatz, M. (2009). Enjoy the silence: an experiment on truth-telling. Experimental Economics, 12, 220–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schotter, A., Snyder, B., & Zheng, W. (2000). Bargaining through agents: an experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 30, 248–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Selten, R. (1975). Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4, 25–55. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Serra-Garcia, M., Van Damme, E., & Potters, J. (forthcoming). Lying about what you know or about what you do? Journal of the European Economic Association. Google Scholar
  52. Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust: effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 211–238. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wang, J. T., Spezio, M., & Camerer, C. F. (2010). Pinocchio’s pupil: using eyetracking and pupil dilation to understand truth telling and deception in sender-receiver games. The American Economic Review, 100, 984–1007. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adrian de Groot Ruiz
    • 1
  • Theo Offerman
    • 2
  • Sander Onderstal
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Institute for Management ResearchRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations