Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:3 (2016) ► pp.371–389

Does successful small-scale coordination help or hinder coordination at larger scales?

| Dartmouth College, USA | Indiana University, USA
| Indiana University, USA

An individual can interact with the same set of people over many different scales simultaneously. Four people might interact as a group of four and, at the same time, in pairs and triads. What is the relationship between different parallel interaction scales, and how might those scales themselves interact?

We devised a four-player experimental game, the Modular Stag Hunt, in which participants chose not just whether to coordinate, but with whom, and at what scale. Our results reveal coordination behavior with such a strong preference for dyads that undermining pairwise coordination actually improves group-scale outcomes. We present these findings as experimental evidence for competition, as opposed to complementarity, between different possible scales of multi-player coordination. This result undermines a basic premise of approaches, like those of network science, that fail to model the interacting effects of dyadic, triadic, and group-scale structures on group outcomes.

Keywords: group structure, coordination, n-player games, networked games, group formation, multi-scale structure
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Generalizing the study of coordination across scales
  • Methods
    • The Modular Stag Hunt
    • Experimental design
    • Subjects and procedure
    • Measures
      • Dependent variable
      • Supporting dependent variables
  • Results
    • Descriptives
    • Main test
    • Supporting analyses
  • Discussion
    • Pairwise coordination prevents coordination at higher scales
    • Alternative explanations
    • History dependence
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 March 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.3.03fre
References (45)
Ahn, T., Esarey, J., & Scholz, J.
(2009) Reputation and Cooperation in Voluntary Exchanges: Comparing Local and Central Institutions. The Journal of Politics, 71(02), 398–413. Retrieved from [URL]
Ahn, T., Isaac, R., & Salmon, T.
(2008) Endogenous group formation. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 10(2), 171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, A.
(1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 221(61), 725–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1952) Communication patterns in problem-solving groups. Cybernetics: Circular Causal, and Feedback Mechanisms in Biological and Social Systems, 1–44.Google Scholar
Berninghaus, S. K., Ehrhart, K. M., & Keser, C.
(2002) Conventions and local interaction structures: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 39(2), 177–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berninghaus, S. K., Ehrhart, K. M., & Ott, M.
(2010) Cooperation and forward-looking behavior in Hawk-Dove games in endogenous networks: experimental evidence. Mimeo, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Faculty of Economics.Google Scholar
Bornstein, G., Budescu, D., & Zamir, S.
(1997) Cooperation in intergroup, N-person, and two-person games of chicken. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(3), 384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F.
(2003) Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F., & Weber, R.
(2007) Experimental Organizational Economics. In the Handbook of Organizational Economics, Eds. R. Gibbons and J. Roberts. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Growing organizational culture in the laboratory. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christie, L., Luce, R., & Macy, J.
(1952) Communication and learning in task-oriented groups. Technical Report. MIT.Google Scholar
Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H.
(2005) Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95(3), 477–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R., DeJong, D., & Forsythe, R.
(1990) Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results. American Economic Review, 80(1), 218–233.Google Scholar
Devetag, G.
(2005) Precedent transfer in coordination games: An experiment. Economic Letters, 891, 227–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J., & Hopkins, E.
(2005) Learning, information, and sorting in market entry games: theory and evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 51(1), 31–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, S., & Goldstone, R. L.
(2010) Group Stratification and Coordination Failure in a Continuous N-Player Stag Hunt. Presented at the 2010 Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Fu, F., Hauert, C., Nowak, M. A., & Wang, L.
(2008) Reputation-based partner choice promotes cooperation in social networks. Physical Review E, 78(2), 026117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glanzer, M., & Glaser, R.
(1961) Techniques for the study of group structure and behavior II: Empirical studies of the effects of structure in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 58(1), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Roberts, M., Mason, W., & Gureckis, T.
(2010) Collective Search in Concrete and Abstract Spaces. In T. Kugler, J. C. Smith, T. Connolly, & Y. Son (Eds.), Decision Modeling and Behavior in Complex and Uncertain Environments (pp. 277–308). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., Wisdom, T. N., Roberts, M. E., & Frey, S.
(2013) Learning Along With Others. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 581, pp. 1–45). Elsevier. DOI logo
Grosskopf, B.
(2003) Reinforcement and directional learning in the ultimatum game with responder competition. Experimental Economics, 6(2), 141–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H.
(1955) The impact of certain communication nets upon organization and performance in task-oriented groups. Management Science, 1(3/4), 233–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C., & Selten, R.
(1988) A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. MIT Press Books, 11.Google Scholar
Hornsey, M. J.
(2008) Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222. DOI logo
Kearns, M., Suri, S., & Montfort, N.
(2006) An experimental study of the coloring problem on human subject networks. Science, 313(5788), 824. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klamt, S., Haus, U.-U., & Theis, F.
(2009) Hypergraphs and Cellular Networks. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(5), e1000385. DOI logo
Kun, Á., Boza, G., & Scheuring, I.
(2010) Cooperators Unite! Assortative linking promotes cooperation particularly for medium sized associations. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(173). Retrieved from [URL] doi:  DOI logo
Leavitt, H.
(1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 38–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maldonado, H., Klemmer, S. R., & Pea, R. D.
(2009) When is collaborating with friends a good idea? Insights from design education (Vol. 11, pp. 227–231). Presented at the Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning, International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Mason, W., Jones, A., & Goldstone, R. L.
(2008) Propagation of innovations in networked groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 137(3), 422–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E.
(1991) Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 3–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, M.
(2004) Detecting community structure in networks. The European Physical Journal B, 381, 321–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, M., & Girvan, M.
(2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rankin, F., Van Huyck, J., & Battalio, R.
(2000) Strategic similarity and emergent conventions: Evidence from similar stag hunt games. Games and Economic Behavior, 321, 315–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravasz, E., Somera, A., Mongru, D., Oltvai, Z., & Barabási, A.
(2002) Hierarchical organization of modularity in metabolic networks. Science, 297(5586), 1551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rick, S., Weber, R., & Camerer, C. F.
(2007) Knowledge Transfer in Simple Laboratory Firms: The Role of Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge. Department of Social and Decision Sciences Working Paper.Google Scholar
Riedl, A., Rohde, I. M. T., & Strobel, M.
(2016) Efficient Coordination in Weakest-Link Games. Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), 737–767. DOI logo
Salmon, T. C., & Weber, R. A.
(2016) Maintaining Efficiency While Integrating Entrants From Lower Performing Groups: An Experimental Study. The Economic Journal. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skyrms, B.
(2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge Univ Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, B., & Pemantle, R.
(2000) A dynamic model of social network formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(16), 9340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stahl, D. O.
(2003) Action reinforcement learning versus rule learning. Greek Economic Review, 221, 27–56.
Weber, R.
(2006) Managing growth to achieve efficient coordination in large groups. American Economic Review, 96(1), 114–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, R., & Camerer, C. F.
(2003) Cultural conflict and merger failure: An experimental approach. Management Science, 49(4), 400–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S.
(2007) Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 331–372. http://doi.org/ DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolley, A., Chabris, C., Pentland, A., & Hashmi, N.
(2010) Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science, 3301, 686–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

BELLIS, PAOLA & ROBERTO VERGANTI
2020. PAIRS IN INNOVATION: HOW WORKING IN PAIRS HELPS ORGANISATIONS TO MOVE INTO A NEW SHARED DIRECTION. International Journal of Innovation Management 24:03 ► pp. 2050072 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.