A game-theorists’ term derived from the commonplace admonishment “Talk is Cheap.” To say that “talk is cheap” is to suggest that words have no meaning because they don’t raise the stakes. “Actions speak louder than words.” Or, to quote the game theorist Yogi Berra “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.” Our casual understanding that the meaning of words derives solely from their ultimate consequences demonstrates that we have deep game-theoretic instincts.
But game theory is useful because with careful study we arrive at insights one or more steps beyond our instincts. And indeed, upon further reflection, just because talk is cheap does not imply by itself that words have no meaning. In fact “cheap talk” can and often does matter because it enables credible exchange of information provided such communication is consistent with self-interested motives. Even though talk is cheap, when upon landing at O’Hare, I phone my taxi dispatcher and tell him I am ready to be picked up at the curbside, he believes me and sends a cab.
Moreover, cheap talk is credible even when there is substantial conflict of interest between the talker and the listener. Despite my claims to the contrary, the dispatcher knows that I am actually calling from inside the airplane and I am not at the curbside yet and he delays the dispatch long enough so that the driver arrives at the curbside after me and not before.
Suprisingly, talk can be credible sometimes only because it is cheap. If instead of me, it is an uninterested third-party who calls the dispatcher to send a cab, the dispatcher knows that she has no reason to say anything other than the truth, and the dispatcher sends the cab immediately.
A final digression on the genesis of the phrase “cheap talk” as a term of art in game theory. It is tempting to suppose that the popularity of the phrase derives from the irony that the logic of incentive-compatible communication turns the idea that “talk is cheap” on its head. But the origin of the phrase is something of a mystery. The first game theorists to demonstrate the role of communication in strategic interactions were Vince Crawford and Joel Sobel in their hugely important paper “Strategic Information Transmission“ Interestingly, a quick search through the text of that paper reveals that neither “cheap” nor “talk” appears anywhere in the paper.
(dinner conversation with Dilip, Tomek, Stephen and Sylvain acknowledged.)

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 1, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Vince Crawford
Jeff,
Good post! (I have been following your blog, which I admire, for a few weeks, and was not just attracted by the citation.)
Joel Sobel and I were aware of the possibility of using the term “cheap talk” when we wrote the first draft of “Strategic Information Transmission” in 1980, but we fastidiously chose to avoid it. (My files show, however, that I did not always avoid it in private correspondence at the time.)
Soon after that (in the early 1980s), Joe Farrell used the term “cheap talk”in the MIT working papers that culminated in his 1993 GEB paper, “Meaning and Credibility in Cheap-Talk Games.” After Joe’s paper was finally published, cultural evolution took over, and Joel and I now use the term like everyone else. Another case, perhaps, of a language being smarter than any of its users.
May 1, 2009 at 9:55 pm
jeff
April 14, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Cheap Talk, Obama and Nuclear Posture Review, Part II « Cheap Talk
[...] it helps the two players to some to the best decision in each state. (Actually, Jeff has already written about this game. [...]
August 11, 2010 at 8:36 am
Cheap Talk: Opinions as Incentives « Cheap Talk
[...] | by Sandeep Baliga Jeff discussed a seminal game theoretic analysis of Cheap Talk in an earlier post: ”Strategic Information Transmission” by Crawford and Sobel studies a decision-maker, [...]