ArticleScientific reports2019
Intuition and Deliberation in the Stag Hunt Game.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deterministic dynamics of distributional multi-agent reinforcement learning.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Prolonged exertion of self-control causes increased sleep-like frontal brain activity and changes in aggressivity and punishment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Childhood Environmental Unpredictability and Experimentally Primed Uncertainty in Relation to Intuitive versus Deliberate Visual Search.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Which Expectations to Follow: The Impact of First- and Second-Order Beliefs on Strategy Choices in a Stag Hunt Game.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Electrophysiological Features to Aid in the Construction of Predictive Models of Human-Agent Collaboration in Smart Environments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An Electrophysiological Model for Assessing Cognitive Load in Tacit Coordination Games.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- How perceived scarcity predicted cooperation during early pandemic lockdown.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The dual problems of coordination and anti-coordination on random bipartite graphs.New journal of physics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present an incentivized laboratory experiment where a random sample of individuals playing a series of stag hunt games are forced to make their choices under time constraints, while the rest of the players have no time limits to decide. We find that individuals under the time pressure treatment are more likely to play stag (vs. hare) than individuals in the control group: under time constraints 62.85% of players are stag-hunters as opposed to 52.32% when no time limits are imposed. These results offer the first experimental evidence on the role of intuition and deliberation in strategic situations that entail social coordination. In interpreting our findings, we provide a discussion on ruling social conventions in daily-life interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.