2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2014.03.018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of endogenous timing on coordination under asymmetric information: An experimental study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The literature on global games, which studies outcomes when players are uncertain about a common fundamental, differs from our theoretical framework, but we consider it important to discuss here given the strategic complementarity of these games. For example, Brindisi et al (2014) find that in an investment game endogenous timing improves social welfare. Their results indicate that while coordination is higher under endogenous timing, it is still lower than predicted.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature on global games, which studies outcomes when players are uncertain about a common fundamental, differs from our theoretical framework, but we consider it important to discuss here given the strategic complementarity of these games. For example, Brindisi et al (2014) find that in an investment game endogenous timing improves social welfare. Their results indicate that while coordination is higher under endogenous timing, it is still lower than predicted.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A sizeable literature exists on signaling asymmetric information in endogenous timing games, see e.g. Daughety andReinganum (1994), Normann (1997), and Brindisi et al (2014).…”
Section: Information Sharingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 The linear model generalizes to one in which instead of rewarding early adoption there is a cost or penalty to late adoption. Similar to the examples used in Brindisi et al (2011) in which late adopters pay higher costs, payoffs become π(i; σ) = bc(µ c i ) − be(µ c i − µ e i ) where bc is the per member conformity payoff and be is the cost associated with each player who acts concurrent or in advance of player i on the same alternative. With bc = rc + re and be = re, the two scenarios are isomorphic.…”
Section: Strategic Behaviormentioning
confidence: 99%