A Cognitive Hierarchy Theory of One-Shot Games and Experimental Analysis
47 Pages Posted: 3 Oct 2003
Date Written: September 8, 2003
Abstract
In game-theoretic equilibrium, players' beliefs about choices by others are statistically correct. This "mutual consistency" assumption often predicts poorly in one-shot games. We develop an alternative "cognitive hierarchy" (CH) theory. In the CH model players who are not thinking strategically (0 steps) randomize. Players doing k steps of thinking predict accurately what lower-level players (steps 0 to k − 1) do, and best-respond given their beliefs. The model can explain why equilibration is so limited in some games (such as p-beauty contest), and surprisingly accurate in other games (such as business entry). The average number of thinking steps is about 1.5 across many games.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Behavioral Game Theory: Thinking, Learning and Teaching
By Colin Camerer, Teck Ho, ...
-
Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study
-
Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study
By Miguel Costa-gomes, Vincent P. Crawford, ...
-
Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining
By Eric J. Johnson, Colin Camerer, ...
-
Limited Depth of Reasoning and Failure of Cascade Formation in the Laboratory
By Dorothea Kübler and Georg Weizsacker
-
Learning Dynamics, Lock-In, and Equilibrium Selection in Experimental Coordination Games
-
Ignoring the Rationality of Others: Evidence from Experimental Normal-Form Games
-
Self-Referential Thinking and Equilibrium as States of Mind in Games: Fmri Evidence
By Meghana Bhatt and Colin Camerer