Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T03:10:08.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Explanation of Anomalous Behavior in Models of Political Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2005

JACOB K. GOEREE  and
CHARLES A. HOLT
JACOB K. GOEREE
Affiliation:
California Institute of Technology
CHARLES A. HOLT
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper characterizes behavior with “noisy” decision making for models of political interaction characterized by simultaneous binary decisions. Applications include: voting participation games, candidate entry, the volunteer's dilemma, and collective action problems with a contribution threshold. A simple graphical device is used to derive comparative statics and other theoretical properties of a “quantal response” equilibrium, and the resulting predictions are compared with Nash equilibria that arise in the limiting case of no noise. Many anomalous data patterns in laboratory experiments based on these games can be explained in this manner.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 201 - 213
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson Simon P., Jacob K. Goeree, and Charles A. Holt. 1998. “A Theoretical Analysis of Altruism and Decision Error in Public Goods Games.” Journal of Public Economics 70: 297– 323.Google Scholar
Anderson Simon P., Jacob K. Goeree, and Charles A. Holt. 2002. “The Logit Equilibrium: A Perspective on Intuitive Behavioral Anomalies.” Southern Economic Journal 69 (1): 21– 47.Google Scholar
Camerer Colin, and D. Lovallo. 1999. “Overconfidence and Excess Entry: An Experimental Approach.” American Economic Review 89 (March): 306– 18.Google Scholar
Capra C. Monica, Jacob K. Goeree, Rosario Gomez, and Charles A. Holt. 1999. “Anomalous Behavior in a Traveler's Dilemma?” American Economic Review 89 (June): 678– 90.Google Scholar
Chong Dennis. 1991. Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cohen Linda R., and Roger Noll. 1991. “How to Vote, Whether to Vote: Strategies for Voting and Abstaining on Congressional Roll Calls.” Political Behavior 13 (2): 97– 127.Google Scholar
Croson Rachel T. A., and Melanie Beth Marks. 2000. “Step Returns in Threshold Public Goods: A Meta- and Experimental Analysis.” Experimental Economics 2 (3): 239– 59.Google Scholar
Diekmann Andreas. 1985. “Volunteer's Dilemma.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29 (4): 605– 10.Google Scholar
Diekmann Andreas. 1986. “Volunteer's Dilemma: A Social Trap Without a Dominant Strategy and Some Empirical Results.” In Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior: Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport, ed. A. Diekmann and P. Mitter. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag, 187– 97.
Erev Ido, and Amnon Rapoport. 1998. “Coordination, “Magic,” and Reinforcement Learning in a Market Entry Game.” Games and Economic Behavior 23 (May): 146– 75.Google Scholar
Feddersen Timothy, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. 1998. “Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 92: 23– 36.Google Scholar
Fey Mark. 1997. “Stability and Coordination in Duverger's Law: A Formal Model of Preelection Polls and Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 135– 47.Google Scholar
Fischbacher Urs, and Christian Thöni. 2001. “Inefficient Excess Entry in an Experimental Winner-Take-All Market.” University of Zurich. Working paper No. 86.
Franzen A. 1995. “Group Size and One Shot Collective Action.” Rationality and Society 7: 183– 200.Google Scholar
Gilligan Michael J. 2003. “Is There a Broader-Deeper Tradeoff?” New York University, Photocopy.
Goeree Jacob K., and Charles A. Holt. 1999. “Stochastic Game Theory: For Playing Games, Not Just for Doing Theory.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (September): 10564– 567.Google Scholar
Guarnaschelli Serena, Richard D. McKelvey, and Thomas R. Palfrey. 2000. “An Experimental Study of Jury Decision Making.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 407– 23.Google Scholar
Kahneman Daniel. 1988. “Experimental Economics: A Psychological Perspective.” In Bounded Rational Behavior in Experimental Games and Markets, Ed. R. Tietz, W. Albers, and R. Selten. New York: Springer-Verlag, 11– 18.
Lohmann Susanne. 1994. “Dynamics of Informational Cascades: The Monday Demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–1991.” World Politics 47: 42– 101.Google Scholar
McKelvey Richard D., and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10: 6– 38.Google Scholar
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 (April): 292– 316.Google Scholar
Miller Gary J. 1997. “The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Political Science.” Journal of Economic Literature 35: 1173– 1204.Google Scholar
Morgan Dylan, Anne M. Bell, and William A. Sethares. 1999. “An Experimental Study of the El Farol Problem.” Presented at the Summer ESA Meetings, Tucson.
Morton Rebecca. 1999. Methods and Models: A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs Jack. 1990. “The Coordination Problem in Decentralized Markets: An Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (May): 545– 59.Google Scholar
Offerman Theo, Arthur Schram, and Joep Sonnemans. 1998. “Quantal Response Models in Step-Level Public Goods.” European Journal of Political Economy 14: 89– 100.Google Scholar
Ordeshook Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom Elinor. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action.” American Political Science Review 92 (1): 1– 22.Google Scholar
Palfrey Thomas R., and Howard Rosenthal. 1983. “A Strategic Calculus of Voting.” Public Choice 41: 7– 53.Google Scholar
Palfrey Thomas R., and Howard Rosenthal. 1985. “Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty.” American Political Science Review 79: 62– 78.Google Scholar
Palfrey Thomas R., and Howard Rosenthal. 1988. “Private Incentives in Social Dilemmas.” Journal of Public Economics 35: 309– 32.Google Scholar
Riker William H., and Peter Ordeshook. 1968. “Theory of the Calculus of Voting.” American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25– 43.Google Scholar
Schram Arthur, and Joep Sonnemans. 1996a. “Voter Turnout as a Participation Game: An Experimental Investigation.” International Journal of Game Theory 25 (3): 85– 406.Google Scholar
Schram Arthur, and Joep Sonnemans. 1996b. “Why People Vote: Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Economic Psychology 17: 417– 42.Google Scholar
Signorino Curtis S. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93 (June): 279– 97.Google Scholar
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– 18.Google Scholar
van de Kragt Alphons, John M. Orbell, and Robyn M. Dawes. 1983. “The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems.” American Political Science Review 77 (March): 112– 22.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.