Efficiency gains from team-based coordination-large-scale experimental evidence
Open accessAbstract
The need for efficient coordination is ubiquitous in organizations and industries. The literature on the determinants of efficient coordination has focused on individual decision making so far. In reality, however, teams often have to coordinate with other teams. We present a series of coordination experiments with a total of 1,101 participants. We find that teams of three subjects each coordinate much more efficiently than individuals. This finding adds one important cornerstone to the recent literature on the conditions for successful coordination. We explain the differences between individuals and teams using the experience weighted attraction learning model. (JEL C71, C91, D23, D83, M54)
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Increased participation by developers in code discussion can introduce more perspectives, thereby extending the time required to reach consensus.
“Increased participation by developers in code discussion can introduce more perspectives, thereby extending the time required to reach consensus (Weber 2006, Feri et al. 2010, Yu et al. 2015, Roels and Corbett 2024).”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Feri et al. 2010
The experimental instructions in the supplementary material (A1. WL-BASE—Teams-treatment; no page given) say that three-person teams could exchange messages for two minutes to agree on a decision. A further instruction allows another attempt if their entries differ. Neither passage addresses whether greater participation introduces more perspectives or lengthens the time to consensus; searches for those relationships found no passage that does. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Do Actions Speak Louder Than Words? An Experimental Comparison of Observation and Cheap Talk
Duffy, J., & Feltovich, N. (2002) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.2001.0892 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal (preprint) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856935 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
The Corona-Pandemic: A Game-Theoretic Perspective on Regional and Global Governance
Caparrós, A., & Finus, M. (2020) · Environmental and Resource Economics · doi:10.1007/s10640-020-00475-4 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Feri, F., Irlenbusch, B., & Sutter, M.
- Affiliations
- Universität Innsbruck (AT)
- University of Cologne (DE)
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2010-09-01
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1892-1912
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3124139526
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 17.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.openicpsr.org
- Locations
- American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- inter-organizational coordination, team efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
