towards an understanding of the endogenous nature of identity in games john smith rutgers...

Towards an Understanding of the Endogenous Nature of

Identity in GamesJohn Smith Rutgers University-Camden, Economics

with Katerina BezrukovaSanta Clara University, Psychology

2

Motivation Q: Does the strategic setting affect identity?

A: Yes Q: How is it affected?

A: Game type interacts with action selected Q: What is the timing of the identity change?

A: Largely after action is selected Q: What causes the magnitude of the change?

A: Increasing in perception of competitiveness Decreasing in perception of cooperativeness

3

Strategic Setting

100,100 45,105

105,45 50,50You

C

D

C D

SomeoneElse

You

C

D

100,100 0,150

150,0 50,50

SomeoneElse

C D

“Mean” Game

“Nice”Game

MutuallyBeneficialOutcome

NashEquilibrium

4

Strategic Setting

100,100 45,105

105,45 50,50You

C

D

C D

SomeoneElse

You

C

D

100,100 0,150

150,0 50,50

SomeoneElse

C D

“Mean” Game

“Nice”Game

“Cheating” yields 5“Cheating” yields 50

5

Identity and Psychology Literature Since Tajfel in 1970’s

Place people into “minimal” groups Observe subjects discriminate against members of other groups favor members of own group

Identity affects behavior

6

Identity in the Psychology Literature Some psychologists prefer to study identity in Minimal Groups

Groups which Did not exist prior to experiment Based on a trivial criteria

If identity effects can be found in minimal groups likely to be stronger for “nontrivial” groups demonstration of fundamental characteristic of

people

Ingroup: of the same group Outgroup: of different groups

7

Identity in the Economics Literature Chen and Li (2007) Ali (2007) Charness, Rigotti and

Rustichini (2007) Eckel and Grossman

(2005) Either Manipulates identity or Observes difference in

behavior to ingroup and outrgoup opponents

By contrast We do not directly

manipulate identity We measure changes in

identity due to the strategic setting

8

Related Economics Literature

Guth, Levati and Ploner (2008)

Measures identity in a strategic setting

Carpenter (2005)

Measures changes in preferences based on

competitiveness of setting

Uses SVO and GARP

9

Experiment 130 students from six classes

for course credit entry into lottery for $50

Each student placed into Group X or Group Y Last Digit of Student ID

0-4 into X 5-9 into Y

Minimal group Group membership known

Subjects identified themselves

10

Experiment Half given “Mean” Game Half given “Nice” Game

Select a single action Told that would play game with

Everyone in group Who received same game

Average payoffs attained Go towards lottery

Higher average payoffs More likely to win prize

11

Identity Measure1. How much do you like being a member of the group?

2. How much do you feel that you belong to the group?

3. How strong are your ties to the group?

4. How pleased are you to belong to the group?

5. How important is the group to you?

6. How much do you identify with the group?

Adapted from Grieve and Hogg (1999) Appropriate for minimal group setting Scale of 1-7

1 indicated a negative preference 4 indicated "no opinion“ 7 indicated a positive preference

12

Competitiveness Measure

1. When I make a decision, I only consider my own welfare

2. I make decisions so that my outcome is relatively better than the outcome for others

Scale of 1-7

Adapted from Beersma and DeDreu (1999)

13

Cooperativeness Measure

1. People know that they can depend on me2. I cooperate with others3. I consider how my decisions affect the

welfare of others4. When making a decision involving my

welfare and the welfare of others, I select the choice which gives the best joint outcome

Scale of 1-7 Adapted from Beersma and DeDreu (1999)

14

Timeline Time 1:

Before subject knows game Measure baseline competitiveness and cooperativeness Measure baseline identity

Time 2: After game type known

but before action selected Measure identity

Time 3: Choice of C or D Measure competitiveness and cooperativeness Measure identity

15

Identity Measure

Asked same identity questions all three times

To minimize bias towards previous answers Had subjects pass forward sheets after

completion Used different color paper to verify

16

Results-Identity Alphas Identity Measure Measure of reliability

How effectively are we measuring latent variable? Between 0 and 1 Acceptable threshold: ≥0.7

Time 1: =0.810 Time 2: =0.858 Time 3: =0.885

17

Results Did the manipulation

induce different choices?

Nice Game: D: 31 C: 37

Mean Game: D: 42 C: 20

2 (1,129)=6.465

p=0.011

18

Average Identity Across TimeBy Game Type

4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

4.3

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity Mean Game

Nice Game

19


4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

4.3

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity Mean Game

Nice Game

t-test

p=0.910

20


4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

4.3

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity Mean Game

Nice Game

21


4

4.05

4.1

4.15

4.2

4.25

4.3

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity Mean Game

Nice Game

No significant relationships

22

Average Identity Across TimeBy Action Choice

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity C

D

23


3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity C

D

24


3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity C

D

25


3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity C

Dp=0.053p=0.273

p=0.332 t-test

SignificanceMann-

Whitney0.036

26

Average Identity Across TimeBy Game Type and Action

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

27


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

28


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

29


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

No significant relationships

30


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

31


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

32


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

ND

33


3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

MC

MD

NC

NDp=0.016

p=0.076p=0.217

t-test

34

Changes in Identity

Perhaps absolute value of identity

less important than changes in identity?

Difference in Identity between Time 1 and Time 3 Given Action and Game Type

35

Changes in Identity

Difference in Time 3 and Time 1 Identity Given Nice Game who played C:

Mean: 0.451 Given Nice Game who played D:

Mean: -0.322

t-test p-value: 0.0686

36

Changes in Identity: Timing

When does the change between Time 1 and 3 occur?

Between Time 2 and Time 3? Only after selecting action

Or between Time 1 and Time 2? Only after seeing game type but before action choice

37

Changes in Identity: Timing Difference in Time 3

and Time 2 Identity Given Nice, select C Mean: 0.108 Given Nice, select D Mean: -0.134


Difference in Time 2 and Time 1 Identity

Given Nice, select C Mean: -0.0484 Given Nice, select D Mean: -0.187


Actually making the choice affects identity

In the Nice Game

38

Changes in Identity No such relationship exists for the Mean

Game

Being cooperative in Nice Game Stronger identification with group

Being uncooperative in Nice Game Weaker identification with group

39

Cooperation and Competition What drives the change in identity?

Difference in Competitiveness between Time 1 and Time 3 Mean or Nice Game C or D

Difference in Cooperativeness between Time 1 and Time 3 Mean or Nice Game C or D

40

Perception of Cooperation Difference in Time 3

and Time 1 Coop. Given Nice, select C Mean: -0.831 Given Nice, select D Mean: -2.218


Difference in Time 3 and Time 1 Coop.

Given Mean, select C Mean: -1.325 Given Mean, select D Mean: -1.845


In the Nice Game playing C more cooperative than DIn the Mean Game playing C not more cooperative than D

41

Perception of Competition Difference in Time 3

and Time 1 Comp. Given Nice, select C Mean: -0.374 Given Nice, select D Mean: 1.430

t-test p-value: 2.154x10-7

Difference in Time 3 and Time 1 Comp.

Given Mean, select C Mean: -0.0167 Given Mean, select D Mean: 0.881


In the Nice Game playing C less competitive than DAlso true for Mean Game

Stronger in Nice Game

42

Cooperation and Competition

Evidence that undertaking more competitive actions

or less cooperative actions

Reduces identity

43

Study 2 40 Students in same setup as before except Asked for single choice to be played against

ingroup and outgroup

Subset of earlier N=130

Pooling does not qualitatively change the analysis from the earlier study However there are some differences

44

Study 2

We now have data on Ingroup choices Outgroup choices Game in which choices were made

45

Average Identity Across TimeBy Actions and Game Type

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity

CCM

CDM

DCM

DDM

CCN

CDN

DCN

DDN

46

Average Identity Across TimeBy Actions

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3

Time

Iden

tity CC

CD

DC

DD

Discriminating Actions

Nondiscriminating Actions

47

Average Identity Across TimeBy Actions

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3

Time

Ident

ity Disc

NonDisc

p=0.0592 p=0.0109 p=0.00285

48

Ingroup/Outgroup Actions

Recall that in initial study In Nice Game:

Action against ingroup affects identity In Mean Game:

Action against ingroup does not

What can we say about the outgroup action?

49

Outgroup Choice

Difference between Time 3 and Time 1 Identity in Nice Game

Given Outgroup choice: D -0.0119

Given Outgroup choice: C -0.357

t-test: p=0.177

Difference between Time 3 and Time 1 Identity in Mean Game

Given Outgroup choice: D -0.867

Given Outgroup choice: C 0.226

t-test: p=0.0276

50

Ingroup Choice

Difference between Time 3 and Time 1 Identity in Nice Game

Given Ingroup choice: D -0.333

Given Ingroup choice: C -0.0238

One sided t-test: p=0.114

Difference between Time 3 and Time 1 Identity in Mean Game

Given Ingroup choice: D -0.452

Given Ingroup choice: C -0.060

One sided t-test: p=0.292

51

Ingroup/Outgroup Actions

In Nice Game, actions against ingroup members affect identity

In Mean Game, actions against outgroup members affects identity

52

Conclusion Identity endogenous in *a* game

Depends on game type and action choice Nice Game, ingroup actions

affect identity Mean Game, outgroup actions

affect identity

Largest identity change occurs only after action taken

53

Conclusion Identity seems to measure

Less a propensity for cooperation with ingroup but rather the propensity to select a

discriminatory action: C in ingroup, D in outgroup D in ingroup, C in outgroup

over a nondiscriminatory action: C in ingroup, C in ingroup D in ingroup, D in ingroup

54

Discussion Different questions to measure identity

Avoid status quo bias? What happens if

games repeated? feedback provided?

Does change in identity affect future behavior? Is new identity more or less helpful in predicting

behavior?

55

Discussion

Performed with different games: Battle of sexes, chicken, etc.

Relationship between identity and SVO? Together better predict behavior?

towards an understanding of the endogenous nature of identity in games john smith rutgers...

Documents

measures identity

identity change

group x

minimal group settingscale

endogenous nature of

minimal groups groups

economics literaturechen

strategic settingcarpenter