Next Issue
Volume 3, March
Previous Issue
Volume 2, September
 
 

Games, Volume 2, Issue 4 (December 2011) – 4 articles , Pages 412-464

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Reader to open them.
Order results
Result details
Section
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
112 KiB  
Editorial
Acknowledgment to Referees
by Games Editorial Office
Games 2011, 2(4), 463-464; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2040463 - 20 Dec 2011
Viewed by 5284
Abstract
Games has received help from many individuals since its inaugural issue in 2009. We are especially grateful to the following 146 referees for their great support of Games during the past two years. [...] Full article
284 KiB  
Article
The Resolution Game: A Dual Selves Perspective
by Dimitri Migrow and Matthias Uhl
Games 2011, 2(4), 452-462; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2040452 - 09 Dec 2011
Viewed by 6490
Abstract
This article explains the emergence of an unique equilibrium resolution as the result of a compromise between two selves with different preferences. The stronger this difference is, the more generous the resolution gets. This result is in contrast to predictions of other models [...] Read more.
This article explains the emergence of an unique equilibrium resolution as the result of a compromise between two selves with different preferences. The stronger this difference is, the more generous the resolution gets. This result is in contrast to predictions of other models in which sinful consumption is distributed bimodally. Therefore, our result fits better with our daily observations concerning a lot of ambivalent goods where we often form nonrigid resolutions. The normative analysis uses the device of a hypothetical impartial self that regards both conflicting motives as equally legitimate. The result of this analysis is dilemmatic. It demonstrates that the resolution is broken too often to be welfare maximal. However, the introduction of external self-commitment devices results in their overuse and is welfare decreasing. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Games and Psychology)
Show Figures

326 KiB  
Article
Unraveling Public Good Games
by Pablo Brañas-Garza and Maria Paz Espinosa
Games 2011, 2(4), 434-451; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2040434 - 21 Nov 2011
Cited by 11 | Viewed by 7543
Abstract
This paper provides experimental evidence on how players predict end-game effects in a linear public good game. Our regression analysis yields a measure of the relative importance of priors and signals on subjects’ beliefs on contributions and allows us to conclude that, first, [...] Read more.
This paper provides experimental evidence on how players predict end-game effects in a linear public good game. Our regression analysis yields a measure of the relative importance of priors and signals on subjects’ beliefs on contributions and allows us to conclude that, first, the weight of the signal is relatively unimportant, while priors have a large weight and, second, priors are the same for all periods. Hence, subjects do not expect end-game effects and there is very little updating of beliefs. We argue that the sustainability of cooperation is related to this pattern of belief formation. Full article
Show Figures

391 KiB  
Article
Building Trust—One Gift at a Time
by Maroš Servátka, Steven Tucker and Radovan Vadovič
Games 2011, 2(4), 412-433; https://doi.org/10.3390/g2040412 - 27 Sep 2011
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 7965
Abstract
This paper reports an experiment evaluating the effect of gift giving on building trust. We have nested our explorations in the standard version of the investment game. Our gift treatment includes a dictator stage in which the trustee decides whether to give a [...] Read more.
This paper reports an experiment evaluating the effect of gift giving on building trust. We have nested our explorations in the standard version of the investment game. Our gift treatment includes a dictator stage in which the trustee decides whether to give a gift to the trustor before both of them proceed to play the investment game. We observe that in such case the majority of trustees offer their endowment to trustors. Consequently, receiving a gift significantly increases the amounts sent by trustors when controlling for the differences in payoffs created by it. Trustees are, however, not better off by giving a gift as the increase in the amount sent by trustors is not large enough to offset the trustees’ loss associated with the cost of giving a gift. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Fairness in Games)
Show Figures

Previous Issue
Next Issue
Back to TopTop