Testing team reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination games
Games of pure mutual interest require players to coordinate their choices without being able to communicate. One way to achieve this is through team-reasoning, asking ‘what should we choose’, rather than just assessing one’s own options from an individual perspective. It has been suggested that team...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2022-03-01
|
| Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18603/jdm18603.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797719685029953536 |
|---|---|
| author | James Matthew Thom Uzma Afzal Natalie Gold |
| author_facet | James Matthew Thom Uzma Afzal Natalie Gold |
| author_sort | James Matthew Thom |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Games of pure mutual
interest require players to coordinate their choices without being able to
communicate. One way to achieve this is through team-reasoning, asking ‘what
should we choose’, rather than just assessing one’s own options from an
individual perspective. It has been suggested that team-reasoning is more
likely when individuals are encouraged to think of those they are attempting to
coordinate with as members of an in-group. In two studies, we examined the
effects of group identity, measured by the ‘Inclusion of Other in Self’ (IOS)
scale, on performance in nondescript coordination games, where there are
several equilibria but no descriptions that a player can use to distinguish any
one strategy from the others apart from the payoff from coordinating on it. In
an online experiment, our manipulation of group identity did not have the
expected effect, but we found a correlation of .18 between IOS and
team-reasoning-consistent choosing. Similarly, in self-reported strategies,
those who reported trying to pick an option that stood out (making it easier to
coordinate on) also reported higher IOS scores than did those who said they
tended to choose the option with the largest potential payoff. In a follow-up
study in the lab, participants played either with friends or with strangers.
Experiment 2 replicated the relationship between IOS and team-reasoning in
strangers but not in friends. Instead, friends’ behavior was related to their
expectations of what their partners would do. A hierarchical cluster analysis
showed that 46.4% of strangers played a team reasoning strategy, compared to
20.6% of friends. We suggest that the strangers who group identify may have
been team reasoning but friends may have tried to use their superior knowledge
of their partners to try to predict their strategy. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:08:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1bd376e55ce14ed09b81585023572aa3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1930-2975 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T09:08:39Z |
| publishDate | 2022-03-01 |
| publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Judgment and Decision Making |
| spelling | doaj.art-1bd376e55ce14ed09b81585023572aa32023-09-02T15:07:25ZengCambridge University PressJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752022-03-01172284314Testing team reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination gamesJames Matthew ThomUzma AfzalNatalie GoldGames of pure mutual interest require players to coordinate their choices without being able to communicate. One way to achieve this is through team-reasoning, asking ‘what should we choose’, rather than just assessing one’s own options from an individual perspective. It has been suggested that team-reasoning is more likely when individuals are encouraged to think of those they are attempting to coordinate with as members of an in-group. In two studies, we examined the effects of group identity, measured by the ‘Inclusion of Other in Self’ (IOS) scale, on performance in nondescript coordination games, where there are several equilibria but no descriptions that a player can use to distinguish any one strategy from the others apart from the payoff from coordinating on it. In an online experiment, our manipulation of group identity did not have the expected effect, but we found a correlation of .18 between IOS and team-reasoning-consistent choosing. Similarly, in self-reported strategies, those who reported trying to pick an option that stood out (making it easier to coordinate on) also reported higher IOS scores than did those who said they tended to choose the option with the largest potential payoff. In a follow-up study in the lab, participants played either with friends or with strangers. Experiment 2 replicated the relationship between IOS and team-reasoning in strangers but not in friends. Instead, friends’ behavior was related to their expectations of what their partners would do. A hierarchical cluster analysis showed that 46.4% of strangers played a team reasoning strategy, compared to 20.6% of friends. We suggest that the strangers who group identify may have been team reasoning but friends may have tried to use their superior knowledge of their partners to try to predict their strategy.http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18603/jdm18603.pdfcoordination group identity shared identity social distance team reasoningnakeywords |
| spellingShingle | James Matthew Thom Uzma Afzal Natalie Gold Testing team reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination games Judgment and Decision Making coordination group identity shared identity social distance team reasoningnakeywords |
| title | Testing team
reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination
games |
| title_full | Testing team
reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination
games |
| title_fullStr | Testing team
reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination
games |
| title_full_unstemmed | Testing team
reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination
games |
| title_short | Testing team
reasoning: Group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination
games |
| title_sort | testing team reasoning group identification is related to coordination in pure coordination games |
| topic | coordination group identity shared identity social distance team reasoningnakeywords |
| url | http://journal.sjdm.org/18/18603/jdm18603.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jamesmatthewthom testingteamreasoninggroupidentificationisrelatedtocoordinationinpurecoordinationgames AT uzmaafzal testingteamreasoninggroupidentificationisrelatedtocoordinationinpurecoordinationgames AT nataliegold testingteamreasoninggroupidentificationisrelatedtocoordinationinpurecoordinationgames |