An experimental study of network effects on coordination in asymmetric games

Network structure has often proven to be important in understanding the decision behavior of individuals or agents in different interdependent situations. Computational studies predict that network structure has a crucial influence on behavior in iterated 2 by 2 asymmetric ‘battle of the sexes’ games. We test such behavioral predictions in an experiment with 240 human subjects. We found that as expected the less ‘random’ the network structure, the better the experimental results are predictable by the computational models. In particular, there is an effect of network clustering on the heterogeneity of convergence behavior in the network. We also found that degree centrality and having an even degree are important predictors of the decision behavior of the subjects in the experiment. We thus find empirical validation of predictions made by computational models in a computerized experiment with human subjects.

[1]  Penélope Hernández,et al.  Heterogeneous network games: Conflicting preferences , 2013, Games Econ. Behav..

[2]  Explore Configuring,et al.  A Simulation Study to , 2004 .

[3]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[4]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[5]  Vincent Buskens,et al.  Effects of Network Characteristics on Reaching the Payoff-Dominant Equilibrium in Coordination Games: A Simulation study , 2015, Dynamic Games and Applications.

[6]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[7]  Vincent Buskens,et al.  Coordination in Dynamic Social Networks Under Heterogeneity , 2011 .

[8]  Robert Forsythe,et al.  COMMUNICATION IN THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES GAME , 1989 .

[9]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  Network Structure and Group Coordination , 2009 .

[10]  R. Sugden,et al.  Focal points in pure coordination games: An experimental investigation , 1994 .

[11]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Coevolutionary success-driven multigames , 2014, ArXiv.

[12]  Naoki Masuda,et al.  Reinforcement learning account of network reciprocity , 2017, PloS one.

[13]  C. Lévi-Strauss,et al.  Experimental investigation , 2013 .

[14]  Ramamohan Paturi,et al.  Connected Coordination: Network Structure and Group Coordination , 2009 .

[15]  John Duffy,et al.  Coordination via correlation: an experimental study , 2017 .

[16]  Angel Sanchez,et al.  Equilibria, information and frustration in heterogeneous network games with conflicting preferences , 2017, ArXiv.

[17]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  Knowledge and networks: An experimental test of how network knowledge affects coordination , 2014, Soc. Networks.

[18]  Heinrich H. Nax,et al.  A Behavioral Study of 'Noise' in Coordination Games , 2015, J. Econ. Theory.

[19]  Vai-Lam Mui,et al.  Using Turn Taking to Mitigate Coordination and Conflict Problems in the Repeated Battle of the Sexes Game , 2008 .

[20]  Ben Greiner,et al.  The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics , 2004 .

[21]  M E J Newman,et al.  Modularity and community structure in networks. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Matjaz Perc,et al.  Evolutionary mixed games in structured populations: Cooperation and the benefits of heterogeneity , 2016, Physical review. E.

[23]  Ken Binmore.  Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory , 2007 .

[24]  T. Schelling.  The Strategy of Conflict , 1963 .

[25]  J. Cuesta,et al.  Heterogeneous networks do not promote cooperation when humans play a Prisoner’s Dilemma , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  V. Crawford,et al.  The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures , 2008 .

[27]  Ramón Alonso-Sanz,et al.  A quantum battle of the sexes cellular automaton , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[28]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Different perceptions of social dilemmas: Evolutionary multigames in structured populations , 2014, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  M. Maes,et al.  A Behavioral Study of 'Noise' in Coordination Games , 2015 .

[30]  Ramón Alonso-Sanz,et al.  The Spatialized, Continuous-Valued Battle of the Sexes , 2012, Dyn. Games Appl..

[31]  Vincent Buskens,et al.  Partner-specific behavior in social networks: Coordination among actors with heterogeneous preferences , 2018, Soc. Networks.

[32]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[33]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Coevolutionary Games - A Mini Review , 2009, Biosyst..

[34]  Rense Corten,et al.  Are bridging ties really advantageous? An experimental test of their advantage in a competitive social learning context , 2018, Soc. Networks.

[35]  Manuel Muñoz-Herrera,et al.  Equilibrium characterization of networks under conflicting preferences , 2017 .

[36]  Marco Tomassini,et al.  Global Information and Mobility Support Coordination Among Humans , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[37]  E. David,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World , 2010 .

[38]  H. Laborit,et al.  [Experimental study]. , 1958, Bulletin mensuel - Societe de medecine militaire francaise.

[39]  A. Homan,et al.  Social information as a cue for tacit coordination , 2012 .

[40]  Jeroen Weesie,et al.  Network effects on coordination in asymmetric games , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[41]  Giulio Cimini,et al.  Learning dynamics explains human behaviour in Prisoner's Dilemma on networks , 2014, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[42]  Daniel L. Chen,et al.  oTree - An Open-Source Platform for Laboratory, Online, and Field Experiments , 2016 .

[43]  Ramón Alonso-Sanz,et al.  SELF-ORGANIZATION IN THE BATTLE OF THE SEXES , 2011 .