Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 21–45 | Cite as

Tacit Coordination in Choice Between Certain Outcomes in Endogenously Determined Lotteries

  • Amnon Rapoport
  • Darryl A. Seale
  • Lisa Ordóñez


Tacit coordination is studied in a class of games in which each of n = 20 players is required to choose between two courses of actions. The first action offers each player a fixed outcome whereas the second presents her the opportunity of participating in a lottery with probabilities that are determined endogenously. Across multiple iterations of the game and trial-to-trial changes in the composition of the lottery, we observe a remarkably good coordination on the aggregate but not individual level. We further observe systematic deviations from the Nash equilibrium solution that are accounted for quite well by a simple adaptive learning model.

interactive decision making lotteries Nash equilibrium tacit coordination 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Binmore, Ken. (1987). “Modeling Rational Players, I, II,” Economics and Philosophy 3, 9-55; 4, 179-214.Google Scholar
  2. Bush, Robert. R. and Frederick Mosteller. (1955). Stochastic Models for Learning. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Camerer, Colin. F. and Teck-Hua Ho. (1999). “Experience-Weighted Attraction Learning in Games,” Econometrica 67, 827-874.Google Scholar
  4. Colman, Andrew M. (1995). Game Theory and Experimental Games: The Study of Strategic Interaction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, Russell, Douglas V. DeJong, Robert Forsythe, and Thomas W. Ross. (1990). “Selection Criteria in Coordination Games: Some Experimental Results,” American Economic Review 80, 218-233.Google Scholar
  6. Erev, Ido and Amnon Rapoport. (1998). “Coordination, “Magic”, and Reinforcement Learning in a Market Entry Game,” Games and Economic Behavior 23, 145-176.Google Scholar
  7. Erev, Ido and Alvin E. Roth. (1998). “Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria,” American Economic Review 88, 848-881.Google Scholar
  8. Erev, Ido and Alvin E. Roth. (1999). “On the Role of Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games: The Cognitive Game-Theoretic Approach.” In David V. Budescu, Ido Erev, and Rami Zwick (eds.), Games and Human Behavior: Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 53-77.Google Scholar
  9. Kelley, Harold H., John W. Thibaut, Robert Radloff, and Donald Mundy. (1962). “The Development of Cooperation in the “Minimal Social Situation,” Psychological Monographs 76, Whole No. 19.Google Scholar
  10. Meyer, Donald J., John B. van Huyck, Raymond C. Battalio, and Thomas R. Saving. (1992). “History's Role in Coordinating Decentralized Allocation Decisions: Laboratory Evidence on Repeated Binary Allocation Games,” Journal of Political Economy 100, 292-316.Google Scholar
  11. Myung, In. J. (2000). “The Importance of Complexity in Model Selection,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 44, 190-204.Google Scholar
  12. Myung, In J. and Mark A. Pitt. (1997). “Applying Occam's Razor in Modeling Cognition: A Bayesian Approach,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 4, 79-95.Google Scholar
  13. Ochs, Jack. (1990). “The Coordination Problem in Decentralized Markets: An Experiment,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 105, 545-559.Google Scholar
  14. Ochs, Jack. (1995). “Coordination Problems.” In John H. Kagel and Alvin E. Roth (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 195-251.Google Scholar
  15. Ochs, Jack. (1999). “Coordination in Market Entry Games.” In David V. Budescu, Ido Erev, and Rami Zwick (eds.), Games and Human Behavior: Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum, pp. 143-172.Google Scholar
  16. Rapoport, Amnon, Alison K. C. Lo, and Rami Zwick. (2002). “Choice of Prizes Allocated by Multiple Lotteries with Endogenously Determined Probabilities,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87, 180-206.Google Scholar
  17. Rapoport, Amnon, Darryl A. Seale, Ido Erev, and James A. Sundali. (1998a). “Equilibrium Play in Large Group Market Entry Games,” Management Science 44, 129-141.Google Scholar
  18. Rapoport, Amnon, Darryl A. Seale, and Lisa Ordóñez. (1998b). “Weighted Probabilities in Tacit Coordination Under Uncertainty: Theory and Evidence from Market Entry Games,” Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, School of Business and Management Working Paper No. MKTG 98.112.Google Scholar
  19. Rapoport, Amnon, Darryl A. Seale, and Eyal Winter. (2000). “An Experimental Study of Coordination and Learning in Iterated Two-Market Entry Games,” Economic Theory 16, 163-184.Google Scholar
  20. Rapoport, Amnon, Darryl A. Seale, and Eyal Winter. (2002). “Coordination and Learning Behavior in Large Groups with Asymmetric Players,” Games and Economic Behavior 39, 111-136.Google Scholar
  21. Roth, Alvin E. and Ido Erev. (1995). “Learning in Extensive-Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamic Models in the Intermediate Term,” Games and Economic Behavior 8, 164-212.Google Scholar
  22. Sundali, James A., Amnon Rapoport, and Darryl A. Seale. (1995). “Coordination in Market Entry Games with Symmetric Players,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64, 203-218.Google Scholar
  23. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. (1992). “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297-323.Google Scholar
  24. Van Huyck, John B., Raymond C. Battalio, and Richard O. Beil. (1990). “Tacit Coordination Games, Strategic Uncertainty, and Coordination Failure,” American Economic Review 80, 234-249.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amnon Rapoport
    • 1
  • Darryl A. Seale
    • 2
  • Lisa Ordóñez
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management and Policy405 McClelland Hall, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management4505 Maryland Parkway, University of Nevada in Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Management and Policy405 McClelland Hall, University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations