Individuals regularly invest in self-protection to reduce the risk of an adverse event. The effectiveness of self-protection often depends on the actions of other economic agents and can be modeled as a stochastic coordination game with multiple Pareto-ranked equilibria. We use lab experiments to analyze tacit coordination in stochastic games with two kinds of interdependencies in payoffs: “non-spatial” in which every agent’s action has an impact on the risk faced by every other agent, and “spatial” in which agents only impact the risk faced by their immediate neighbors. We also compare behavior in the stochastic games to deterministic versions of the same games. We find that coordination on the payoff-dominant equilibrium is significantly easier in the deterministic games than in the stochastic games and that spatial interdependencies lead to greater levels of coordination in the deterministic game but not in the stochastic game. The difficulty with coordination observed in the stochastic games has important implications for many real-world examples of interdependent security and also illustrates the importance of not relying on data from deterministic experiments to analyze behavior in settings with risk.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Another research question concerns the speed with which subjects converge to an equilibrium. Cassar (2007) hypothesizes that a shorter characteristic path length — the average number of shortest paths of one subject to all other subjects — causes faster convergence to any equilibrium. In our experimental set-up, the characteristic path length in the non-spatial treatment is just 1 (everybody is connected directly with everybody else) while it is 1.8 in the spatial treatment.
Kunreuther et al. (2009) analyze behavior in IDS games with strategic substitutability, stochastic versions of the classic prisoner’s dilemma. These games have only one equilibrium, which is sub-optimal. For example, the equilibrium number of vaccinations is likely to be less than the optimal number since the private benefit of a vaccine is decreasing as the number of people vaccinated increases.
As usual in these coordination games, there is also a Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies in each game: all players take action with probability 0.6, which is Pareto-inferior to everybody taking action with certainty (the slight asymmetry in expected payoffs in the spatial game, with 28 instead of 30 in Table 2, was chosen in order to have the same NE in mixed strategies in both games).
Technically, the random number was not determined in the session itself; rather, all 900 numbers (18 subjects in a session times 50 rounds) were randomly determined before the first session in order to avoid behavioral differences between sessions due to differences in how bad outcomes were generated. This use of a “pseudo-random feed” has been standard in lab experiments with random effects; see, for example, Cox et al. (2001).
Of course, many of those subjects did not suffer the bad outcome themselves but were able to observe on the payoff screen that others in their group did, which might have influenced them negatively.
This result is consistent with findings for public good games, where cooperation in situations with stochastic losses tends to be lower than in their deterministic counterparts (Berger and Hershey 1994).
Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Roth, A.E. (2006). The speed of learning in noisy games: Partial reinforcement and the sustainability of cooperation. American Economic Review, 96, 1029–1042.
Berger, L.A., & Hershey, J.C. (1994). Moral hazard, risk seeking, and free riding. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 173–186.
Berninghaus, S.K., Ehrhart, K.-M., Keser, C. (2002). Conventions and local interaction structures: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 39, 177–205.
Briys, E., & Schlesinger, H. (1990). Risk aversion and the propensities for self-insurance and self-protection. Southern Economic Journal, 57, 458–467.
Browne, M.J., & Hoyt, R.E. (2000). The demand for flood insurance: Empirical evidence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 291–306.
Cassar, A. (2007). Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 58(2), 209–230.
Cooper, R., DeJong, D.V., Forsythe, R., Ross, T.W. (1990). Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results. American Economic Review, 80, 218–233.
Corbae, D., & Duffy, J. (2008). Experiments with network formation. Games and Economic Behavior, 64, 81–120.
Cox, J.C., Dinkin, S., Swarthout, J.T. (2001). Endogeneous entry and exit in common value auctions. Experimental Economics, 4, 163–181.
Devetag, G., & Ortmann, A. (2007). When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 10(3), 331–344.
Dionne, G., & Eeckhoudt, L. (1985). Self-insurance, self-protection and increased risk aversion. Economics Letters, 17(1-2), 39–42.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.
Gong, M., Heal, G., Krantz, D.H., Kunreuther, H., Weber, E. (2014). The role of subsidies in coordination games with interconnected risk. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 27, 395–407.
Harsanyi, J.C., & Selten, R. (1988). A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Heal, G., & Kunreuther, H. (2010). Social reinforcement: Cascades, entrapment, and tipping. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 86–99.
Hess, R.O., Holt, C.A., Smith, A.M. (2007). Coordination of strategic responses to security threats: Laboratory evidence. Experimental Economics, 10, 235–50.
Holt, C.A., & Laury, S.K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–55.
Kearns, M. (2005). Economics, computer science, and policy. Issues in Science and Technology, 21(2), 37–47.
Keser, C., Ehrhart, K.-M., Berninghaus, S.K. (1998). Coordination and local interaction: Experimental evidence. Economics Letters, 58, 269–275.
Kunreuther, H. (1978). Disaster insurance protection: Public policy lessons. New York: Wiley.
Kunreuther, H., & Heal, G. (2003). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 231–49.
Kunreuther, H., Silvasi, G., Bradlow, E.T., Small, D. (2009). Bayesian analysis of deterministic and stochastic prisoner’s dilemma games. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 363–84.
Riedl, A., Rohde, I.M.T., Strobel, M. (2016). Efficient coordination in weakest-link games. Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), 737–767.
Shafran, A.P. (2008). Risk externalities and the problem of wildfire risk. Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 488–95.
Shafran, A.P. (2010). Interdependent security experiments. Economics Bulletin, 30, 1950–62.
Shafran, A.P., & Lepore, J.J. (2011). Subsidization to induce tipping. Economics Letters, 110, 32–35.
Taylor, M.H., Christman, L., Rollins, K. (2015). Choosing the right policy to promote defensible space in the wildland urban interface: Evidence from homeowners in Nevada. University of Nevada Reno Economics Working Paper Series, 15–001.
Van Huyck, J.B., Battalio, R.C., Beil, R.O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234–48.
Van Huyck, J.B., Battalio, R.C., Beil, R.O. (1991). Strategic uncertainty, equilibrium selection, and coordination failure in average opinion games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(3), 885–910.
This research was supported in part by funds provided by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Kroll, S., Shafran, A.P. Spatial externalities and risk in interdependent security games. J Risk Uncertain 56, 237–257 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-018-9280-8
- Risk mitigation
- Interdependent security
- Coordination game