Fiche du document
23 mars 2014
- ISIDORE Id: 10670/1.01982c...
- halshs: halshs-01061445
- doi: 10.1007/s00355-014-0814-y
HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s00355-014-0814-y
Sujets proches
PollsCiter ce document
Eric Guerci et al., « A methodological note on a weighted voting experiment », HALSHS : archive ouverte en Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société - notices sans texte intégral, ID : 10.1007/s00355-014-0814-y
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
We conducted a sensitivity analysis of the results of weighted voting experiments by varying two features of the experimental protocol by Montero et al. (Soc Choice Welf 30(1):69-87, 2008): (1) the way in which the roles of subjects are reassigned in each round [random role (RR) vs. fixed role (FR)] and (2) the number of proposals that subjects can simultaneously approve [multiple approval (MA) vs. single approval (SA)]. It was observed that the differences in these protocols had impacts on the relative frequencies of minimum winning coalitions (MWCs) as well as how negotiations proceed. 3-player MWCs were more frequently observed, negotiations were much longer, subjectsmade less mistakes, and proposal-objection dynamics were more frequently observed, under the protocol with FR and SA than under the protocol with RR and MA.
