Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T13:05:35.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jordi Brandts  and
Gary Charness
Jordi Brandts*
Affiliation:
Department of Business Economics, U. Autònoma de Barcelona and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica, CSIC, Campus UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
Gary Charness*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, 3051 North Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-9210, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper, we present a first survey of the literature regarding whether the strategy method, in which a responder makes conditional decisions for each possible information set, leads to different experimental results than does the more standard direct-response method, in which the responder learns the action of the first mover and then chooses a response. Of the twenty-nine existing comparisons, sixteen find no difference, while four do find differences, and nine comparisons find mixed evidence. We also find some indications about the underlying determinants of when the two methods lead to different responses. For example, it appears that levels of punishment are substantially lower with the strategy method. In addition, it also appears that difference across these elicitation methods are more likely when people make fewer contingent choices. Finally, in no case do we find that a treatment effect found with the strategy method is not observed with the direct-response method.

Keywords

Strategy methodExperimentsElicitationFraming

JEL classification

C79: Other B49: Other C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C90: General C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 375 - 398
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 The Author(s)

References

Abbink, K., Irlenbusch, B., & Renner, E. (2000). An experimental study of reciprocity and retribution. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 42, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armentier, O. (2004). Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? Université de Montréal, mimeo.Google Scholar
Armentier, O., & Treich, N. (2007). Subjective probabilities in games: an application to the overbidding puzzle. Université de Montréal, mimeo.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, G., Moffatt, P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2010). Experimental economics: rethinking the rules. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. (1996). The inconsistent evaluation of absolute versus comparative payoffs in labor supply and bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch-Domènech, A., & Silvestre, J. (1999). Does risk aversion or attraction depend on income? An experiment. Economics Letters, 65, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch-Domènech, A., & Silvestre, J. (2006). Risk aversion and embedding bias. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, mimeo.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2000). Hot vs. cold: sequential responses in simple experimental games. Experimental Economics, 2, 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2003). Truth or consequences: an experiment. Management Science, 49, 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2009). The strategy versus the direct-response method: a survey of experimental comparisons. Working paper.Google Scholar
Brandts, J., Riedl, A., & van Winden, F. (2009). Competitive rivalry, social disposition and subjective well-being: an experiment. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1158–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosig, J., Weimann, J., & Yang, C.-L. (2003). The hot versus cold effect in a simple bargaining experiment. Experimental Economics, 6, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Büchner, S., Coricelli, G., & Greiner, B. (2007). Self-centered and other-regarding behavior in the solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, S., Carpenter, J., & Verhoogen, E. (2003). Playing both roles in the trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casari, M., & Cason, T. (2009). The strategy method lowers measured trustworthy behavior. Economics Letters, 103, 157–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T., & Mui, V.-L. (1998). Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 248–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carter, J., & Irons, M. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Grosskopf, B. (2001). Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2005). Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games. Games and Economic Behavior, 53, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., & Van Huyck, J. (2003). Evidence on the equivalence of the strategic and extensive form representation of games. Journal of Economic Theory, 110, 290–308.Google Scholar
Cox, J., & Hall, D. (2010). Trust with private and common property: effects of stronger property right entitlements. Games, 1, 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94, 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96, 1611–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2005). Driving forces behind informal sanctions. Econometrica, 73, 2017–2030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness—intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2006). Heterogeneous social preferences and the dynamics of free riding in public goods. CeDEx Discussion Paper No. 2006-01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, Y.-f., Huang, C.-Y., & Offerman, T. (2007). Guilt-driven reciprocity in a psychological signaling game. University of Amsterdam, mimeo.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., Holt, C., & Palfrey, T. (2002). Quantal response equilibrium and overbidding in private-value auctions. Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: a survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Ockenfels, P., & Wendel, M. (1997). Cooperation based on trust: an experimental investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18, 15–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Huck, S., & Müller, W. (2001). The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harless, D., & Camerer, C. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommes, C., Sonnemans, J., Tuinstra, J., & van de Velden, H. (2005). A strategy experiment in dynamic asset pricing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 29, 823–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iriberri, N., & Rey-Biel, P. (2008). The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, mimeo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keser, C. (1993). Some results of experimental duopoly markets with demand inertia. Journal of Industrial Economics, 41, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawczyk, M. (2006). Note on strategy method in experimental games. University of Amsterdam, mimeo.Google Scholar
Kübler, D., & Müller, W. (2002). Simultaneous and sequential price competition in heterogeneous duopoly markets: experimental evidence. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 1437–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meidinger, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (1999). Jeu de ľinvestissement et coordination par les intentions: des résultats expérimentaux. Université Pierre Mendès France, Grenoble, mimeo.Google Scholar
Mitzkewitz, M., & Nagel, R. (1993). Experimental results on ultimatum games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 22, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, L., Sefton, M., Steinberg, R., & Vesterlund, L. (2008). Strategic behavior and learning in repeated voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67, 782–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R., Rapoport, A., & Parco, J. (2006). Breakdown of cooperation in iterative real-time trust dilemmas. Experimental Economics, 9, 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R., Rapoport, A., & Parco, J. (2007). Credible signaling in real-time trust dilemmas. University of Arizona, mimeo.Google Scholar
Offerman, T., Potters, J., & Verbon, H. (2001). Cooperation in an overlapping generations experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 36, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxoby, R., & McLeish, K. (2004). Sequential decision and strategy method vectors in ultimatum bargaining: evidence on the strength of other-regarding behavior. Economics Letters, 84, 399–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A. (1997). Order of play in strategically equivalent games in extensive form. International Journal of Game Theory, 26, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A., & Fuller, M. (1995). Bidding strategies in a bilateral monopoly with two-sided incomplete information. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A., & Sundali, J. (1996). Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty: offer games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A., Sundali, J., & Seale, D. (1996). Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty: demand games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A., Seale, D., Erev, I., & Sundali, J. (1998). Equilibrium play in large group market entry games. Management Science, 40, 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuben, E., & Suetens, S. (2008). Disentangling strategic from non-strategic cooperation in social dilemmas. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In Kagel, J. & Roth, A. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., Weigelt, K., & Wilson, C. (1994). A laboratory investigation of multiperson rationality and presentation effects. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 445–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seale, D., & Rapoport, A. (2000). Elicitation of strategy profiles in large group coordination games. Experimental Economics, 3, 153–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In Sauermann, H. (Ed.), Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Selten, R., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). An experimental solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 34, 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R., Mitzkewitz, M., & Uhlich, G. (1997). Duopoly strategies programmed by experienced players. Econometrica, 65, 517–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R., Abbink, K., Buchta, J., & Sadrieh, K. (2003). How to play 3 × 3-games—a strategy method experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 45, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, C., & Keren, G. (1999). Determinants of trust. In Budescu, D., Erev, I., & Zwick, R. (Eds.), Games and human behavior (pp. 355–385). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Solnick, S. (2007). Cash and alternate methods of accounting in an experimental game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 62, 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnemans, J. (2000). Decisions and strategies in a sequential search experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundali, J., Rapoport, A., & Seale, D. (1995). Coordination in market entry games with symmetric players. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weg, E., & Smith, V. (1993). On the failure to induce meager offers in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14, 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar