Social Cognition
Stag Hunt Game
Also called: assurance game, trust dilemma, coordination game with a safe option
Measure trust and coordination: participants choose A or B in each round with one programmed partner, where one option pays most only if both choose it and the other is safe.
4-7 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 120
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 1
What it measures
Measures trust and coordination: in repeated rounds, the participant and a programmed partner each choose a cooperative option that pays most only when both choose it, or a safe option that pays the same whatever the partner does.
Constructs
- Coordination
- Trust
- Strategic uncertainty
- Social decision making
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research
- Trust and coordination studies
- Social decision-making research in clinical groups
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Stag Hunt Game measures trust and coordination. In each round the participant and a partner each choose one of two options at the same time. The cooperative option, called stag in the literature, gives 12 points each when both choose it but only 2 points to a player who chooses it alone; the safe option, hare, gives 8 points whatever the partner does. Both pairs of equal choices are stable and both stag pays more, but stag pays at least as much as hare only when the partner chooses stag with a chance of 60% or more, so choosing it means trusting the partner to choose it too. The partner is a computer program that follows set rules, and by default the instructions say so.
More about the paradigm
The game follows the stag hunt as Skyrms (2001) tells Rousseau's story, where the hare hunter's catch does not depend on the other hunter. The points are ConductScience's own and give stag a basin of attraction of 0.4, the largest chance of hare at which stag still pays at least as much, so hare is the less risky equilibrium (risk dominant; Harsanyi and Selten, 1988), as in most earlier stag hunt experiments (Dal Bó, Fréchette and Kim, 2021). The participant plays 40 rounds as standard against one partner. It chooses stag in round 1 with a 50% chance, about the share of first choices at similar stakes (52% in Belloc, Bilancini, Boncinelli and D'Alessandro, 2019), and then gives the best reply to the participant's last choice, as in learning models of coordination (Kandori, Mailath and Rob, 1993; Young, 1993), taking the other option with a 10% chance in each round. The number of rounds is not shown, so no round is known to be the last. The options are labelled A and B, and which letter is stag is drawn from the session's seed. A comprehension question with feedback comes first, and both choices and the points show after each round. Researchers can set 10 to 100 rounds, show the number of rounds, choose a partner that always chooses stag, always chooses hare or chooses at random, use a neutral partner wording, and choose the payment line.
The main score is the share of rounds in which the participant chose stag. The task also reports the first choice, made before seeing the partner, coordination (both choosing alike), mutual stag, stag after the partner chose stag and after it chose hare, and the total points. Experiments with stag hunt games often find coordination on the less rewarding outcome (Van Huyck, Battalio and Beil, 1990; Cooper, DeJong, Forsythe and Ross, 1992). Across eight earlier experiments and a new one, Dal Bó and colleagues (2021) found that stag was chosen more often the larger its basin of attraction, and that risk dominance alone did not decide which outcome people reached. Under time pressure, people chose stag more often (Belloc and colleagues, 2019). Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Stag Rate%
- Share of rounds in which the participant chose the cooperative option (stag).
- Higher means more trust that the partner will cooperate
- First-Round Stag0/1
- 1 when the participant chose stag in round 1, before seeing the partner's choice, 0 when not.
- Informational
- Coordination Rate%
- Share of rounds in which the participant and the partner chose the same option.
- Higher means more coordination
- Mutual Stag Rate%
- Share of rounds in which both chose stag, the outcome that pays both most.
- Higher means more coordination on the cooperative outcome
- Stag After Partner Stag%
- Share of rounds after the partner chose stag in which the participant chose stag.
- Higher means cooperation was returned more often
- Stag After Partner Hare%
- Share of rounds after the partner chose the safe option (hare) in which the participant chose stag.
- Higher means more cooperation after the partner played safe
- Total Pointspoints
- Points the participant earned over all rounds.
- Informational
- Comprehension Check%
- Share of the comprehension questions answered correctly.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Median Decision Timems
- Median time from a round's start to the choice, over choices at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Choices made less than 100 ms after the round's screen appeared. They still count in the shares.
- 0 expected
- Roundscount
- Rounds scored.
- Informational
Use and evidence
120 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 22% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 170 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 40 |
| 2024 | 15 |
| 2023 | 18 |
| 2022 | 24 |
| 2021 | 23 |
| 2020 | 15 |
| 2019 | 16 |
| 2018 | 20 |
| 2017 | 28 |
| 2016 | 19 |
| 2015 | 27 |
| 2014 | 27 |
| 2013 | 26 |
| 2012 | 13 |
| 2011 | 20 |
| 2010 | 14 |
| 2009 | 11 |
| 2008 | 10 |
| 2007 | 5 |
| 2006 | 7 |
| 2005 | 11 |
| 2004 | 10 |
| 2003 | 4 |
| 2002 | 2 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 3 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 7
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 1
Note on the counts: mostly game-theory papers; few run a task.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Partner
- One computer program that follows set rules, for the whole game. The standard instructions say so; a neutral wording says only "your partner".
- Points
- Both choose stag: 12 each. Both choose hare: 8 each. Stag against hare: 2 for stag and 8 for hare, so hare always gives 8. Stag pays at least as much as hare only when the partner chooses stag with a chance of 60% or more (a basin of attraction of 0.4).
- Options
- A and B, chosen at the same time. Which letter is stag is drawn from the session's seed and saved; the screens show only the letters.
- Rounds
- 40 (standard; 10 to 100) against the same partner. The number is not shown unless a setting shows it.
- Partner rule
- Best reply (standard): stag with a 50% chance in round 1, then the best reply to the participant's choice in the round before (stag after stag, hare after hare), with a 10% chance of the other option in each round. Or always stag, always hare, or random with a 50% chance of stag in each round.
- Outcome
- Both choices and the points show for 2,000 ms after each round.
- Check
- One question with feedback before the first round: the points for a pair of different choices drawn from the seed, with 2, 8 and 12 as the answers.
- Money
- Points are hypothetical by default; a setting changes the instruction line to say the study pays.
The points are ConductScience's own, set so that hare is the less risky equilibrium, as in most stag hunt experiments. The experiments Dal Bó and colleagues collected paired people with new partners for pay; here a participant plays one programmed partner for a set number of rounds, not shown by default, and the points are hypothetical unless the study pays. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's choices in each round. No choice is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and choosing the cooperative option or the safe option in every round is accepted. A wrong comprehension answer is flagged for review. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Choosing one option in every round is a strategy, so repeated choices are not checked. A participant who misreads the points may choose the opposite of what they intend, so a wrong comprehension answer is flagged for review and never invalidates. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Partner strategy | Best reply to the last round (standard) | Best reply to the last round (standard), Always the cooperative option (stag), Always the safe option (hare), Random: 50% chance of the cooperative option each round |
| Rounds | 40 | 10 to 100 |
| Number of rounds shown | Off | On or off |
| Partner wording | A computer program (standard) | A computer program (standard), Neutral: your partner |
| Payment line | Hypothetical points (standard) | Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Stag Hunt Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Skyrms B, 2001; Dal Bó P, Fréchette GR, Kim J, 2021), with the standard settings (partner strategy: Best reply to the last round; rounds: 40; number of rounds shown: Off; partner wording: A computer program; payment line: Hypothetical points). The main score was stag rate (share of rounds in which the participant chose the cooperative option (stag)).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Skyrms, B. (2001). The stag hunt. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 75(2), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3218711The game as Rousseau's story of the hunt, with a hare whose value does not depend on the other hunter.
- Dal Bó, P., Fréchette, G. R., & Kim, J. (2021). The determinants of efficient behavior in coordination games. Games and Economic Behavior, 130, 352-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2021.08.010Stag choices rise with the basin of attraction of stag, in eight earlier experiments and a new one.
- Belloc, M., Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., & D'Alessandro, S. (2019). Intuition and deliberation in the stag hunt game. Scientific Reports, 9, 14833. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50556-8About half of choices are stag at similar stakes, and more under time pressure.
- Van Huyck, J. B., Battalio, R. C., & Beil, R. O. (1990). Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review, 80(1), 234-248. Coordination failure in games with an outcome that pays everyone more.
- Young, H. P. (1993). The evolution of conventions. Econometrica, 61(1), 57-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2951778Best replies with occasional mistakes, the rule of the standard partner.
Source papers
- Dal Bó, Fréchette and Kim (2021): stag choices rise with the basin of attraction of stag, in eight earlier experiments and a new one. Belloc and colleagues (2019): 52% stag in one-shot stag hunts without time pressure.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Stag Hunt Game take?
About 4 to 7 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Stag Rate, First-Round Stag, Coordination Rate, Mutual Stag Rate, Stag After Partner Stag, Stag After Partner Hare, Total Points, Comprehension Check, Median Decision Time, Choices Under 100 ms and Rounds. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Stag Hunt Game used in research?
120 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 22% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 170 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 2 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Stag Hunt Game have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 1 registered clinical study uses it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Partner strategy (Best reply to the last round (standard), Always the cooperative option (stag), Always the safe option (hare), Random: 50% chance of the cooperative option each round), rounds (10 to 100), number of rounds shown (On or off), partner wording (A computer program (standard), Neutral: your partner) and payment line (Hypothetical points (standard), The study pays for points). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests