Strong Stackelberg reasoning in symmetric games: An experimental replication and extension

Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolynErthygladolygiad gan gymheiriaid

StandardStandard

Strong Stackelberg reasoning in symmetric games: An experimental replication and extension. / Pulford, B.D.; Colman, A.M.; Lawrence, C.L.
Yn: PeerJ, Cyfrol 263, 25.02.2014.

Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolynErthygladolygiad gan gymheiriaid

HarvardHarvard

APA

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Pulford BD, Colman AM, Lawrence CL. Strong Stackelberg reasoning in symmetric games: An experimental replication and extension. PeerJ. 2014 Chw 25;263. doi: 10.7717/peerj.263

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strong Stackelberg reasoning in symmetric games: An experimental replication and extension

AU - Pulford, B.D.

AU - Colman, A.M.

AU - Lawrence, C.L.

PY - 2014/2/25

Y1 - 2014/2/25

N2 - In common interest games in which players are motivated to coordinate their strategies to achieve a jointly optimal outcome, orthodox game theory provides no general reason or justification for choosing the required strategies. In the simplest cases, where the optimal strategies are intuitively obvious, human decision makers generally coordinate without difficulty, but how they achieve this is poorly understood. Most theories seeking to explain strategic coordination have limited applicability, or require changes to the game specification, or introduce implausible assumptions or radical departures from fundamental game-theoretic assumptions. The theory of strong Stackelberg reasoning, according to which players choose strategies that would maximize their own payoffs if their co-players could invariably anticipate any strategy and respond with a best reply to it, avoids these problems and explains strategic coordination in all dyadic common interest games. Previous experimental evidence has provided evidence for strong Stackelberg reasoning in asymmetric games. Here we report evidence from two experiments consistent with players being influenced by strong Stackelberg reasoning in a wide variety of symmetric 3 × 3 games but tending to revert to other choice criteria when strong Stackelberg reasoning generates small payoffs.

AB - In common interest games in which players are motivated to coordinate their strategies to achieve a jointly optimal outcome, orthodox game theory provides no general reason or justification for choosing the required strategies. In the simplest cases, where the optimal strategies are intuitively obvious, human decision makers generally coordinate without difficulty, but how they achieve this is poorly understood. Most theories seeking to explain strategic coordination have limited applicability, or require changes to the game specification, or introduce implausible assumptions or radical departures from fundamental game-theoretic assumptions. The theory of strong Stackelberg reasoning, according to which players choose strategies that would maximize their own payoffs if their co-players could invariably anticipate any strategy and respond with a best reply to it, avoids these problems and explains strategic coordination in all dyadic common interest games. Previous experimental evidence has provided evidence for strong Stackelberg reasoning in asymmetric games. Here we report evidence from two experiments consistent with players being influenced by strong Stackelberg reasoning in a wide variety of symmetric 3 × 3 games but tending to revert to other choice criteria when strong Stackelberg reasoning generates small payoffs.

U2 - 10.7717/peerj.263

DO - 10.7717/peerj.263

M3 - Article

VL - 263

JO - PeerJ

JF - PeerJ

SN - 2167-8359

ER -