A cognitive hierarchy theory of one-shot games: Some preliminary results
نویسندگان
چکیده
Strategic thinking, best-response, and mutual consistency (equilibrium) are three key modelling principles in noncooperative game theory. This paper relaxes mutual consistency to predict how players are likely to behave in in one-shot games before they can learn to equilibrate. We introduce a one-parameter cognitive hierarchy (CH) model to predict behavior in one-shot games, and initial conditions in repeated games. The CH approach assumes that players use k steps of reasoning with frequency f (k). Zero-step players randomize. Players using k ( ̧ 1) steps best respond given partially rational expectations about what players doing 0 through k ¡ 1 steps actually choose. A simple axiom which expresses the intuition that steps of thinking are increasingly constrained by working memory, implies that f (k) has a Poisson distribution (characterized by a mean number of thinking steps ¿ ). The CH model converges to dominance-solvable equilibria when ¿ is large, predicts monotonic entry in binary entry games for ¿ < 1:25, and predicts e®ects of group size which are not predicted by Nash equilibrium. Best̄tting values of ¿ have an interquartile range of (.98,2.40) and a median of 1.65 across 80 experimental samples of matrix games, entry games, mixed-equilibrium games, and dominance-solvable p-beauty contests. The CH model also has economic value because subjects would have raised their earnings substantially if they had best-responded to model forecasts instead of making the choices they did.
منابع مشابه
A Cognitive Hierarchy Theory of One-shot Games
Strategic thinking, best-response, and mutual consistency (equilibrium) are three key modeling principles in noncooperative game theory. This paper relaxes mutual consistency to predict how players are likely to behave in one-shot games before they can learn to equilibrate. We introduce a one-parameter cognitive hierarchy (CH) model to predict behavior in one-shot games, and initial conditions ...
متن کاملExplaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus Team Reasoning
This paper reports experimental tests of two alternative explanations of how players use focal points to select equilibria in one-shot coordination games. Cognitive hierarchy theory explains coordination as the result of common beliefs about players’ pre-reflective inclinations towards the relevant strategies; the theory of team reasoning explains it as the result of the players’ using a non-st...
متن کاملThe Nature of Salience Revisited: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus Team Reasoning
This paper reports experimental tests of two alternative explanations of how players use focal points to select equilibria in one-shot coordination games. Cognitive hierarchy theory explains coordination as the result of common beliefs about players’ pre-reflective inclinations towards the relevant strategies; the theory of team reasoning explains it as the result of the players’ using a non-st...
متن کاملCompressed Equilibrium in Large Repeated Games of Incomplete Information Preliminary Draft
Due to their many applications, large Bayesian games have been a subject of growing interest in game theory and related fields. But to a large extent, models (1) have been restricted to one-shot interaction, (2) are based on an assumption that player types are independent and (3) assume that the number of players is known. The current paper develops a general theory of Bayesian repeated large g...
متن کاملExplaining Strategic Coordination: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory, Strong Stackelberg Reasoning, and Team Reasoning
In common interest games, players generally manage to coordinate their actions on mutually optimal outcomes, but orthodox game theory provides no reason for them to play their individual parts in these seemingly obvious solutions and no justification for choosing the corresponding strategies. A number of theories have been suggested to explain coordination, among the most prominent being versio...
متن کامل