Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:07:11.522Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bounded Rationality in the Centipede Game1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Ashton T. Sperry-Taylor
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Normative game theory unsatisfactorily explains rational behavior. Real people do not behave as predicted, and what is prescribed as rational behavior is normally unattainable in real-life. The problem is that current normative analysis does not account for people's cognitive limitations – their bounded rationality. However, this paper develops an account of bounded rationality that explains the rationality of more realistic behavior. I focus on the Centipede Game, in which boundedly rational players explore and test others' immediate behavior, until they can apply limited backward induction. The result is that the game has a solution in the form of a subjective Nash equilibrium, which boundedly rational players can possibly realize.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 2011, pp. 262 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

References

Bicchieri, C. 1992. “Knowledge-Dependent Games: Backward Induction.” In Bicchieri, C. and Chiara, M.L.D. (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and Strategic Interaction, pp. 327–43 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 1993. Rationality and Coordination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. and Antonelli, G. A.. 1995. “Game-Theoretic Axioms for Local Rationality and Bounded Knowledge.” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 4: 145–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M., Crawford, V., and Broseta, B.. 2001. “Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study.” Econometrica 69: 1193–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa-Gomes, M. and Crawford, V.. 2006. “Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review 96(5): 1737–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. and Iriberri, N.. 2007a. “Fatal Attraction: Salience, Naïveté, and Sophistication in Experimental ‘Hide-and-Seek’ Games.” American Economic Review 97(5): 1731–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. and Iriberri, N.. 2007b. “Level-k Auctions: Can a Nonequilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions?” Econometrica 75: 1721–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2001. “The Adaptive Toolbox.” In Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, pp. 37–50Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hedden, T. and Zhang, J.. 2002. “What Do You Think I Think You Think? Strategic Reasoning in Matrix Games.” Cognition 85: 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, T., Camerer, C. F., and Weigelt, K.. 1998. “Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best Response in Experimental ‘p-Beauty Contests.’” The American Economic Review 88(4): 947–69.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J., Camerer, C.Sen, S., and Rymon, T.. 2002. “Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Theory 104: 16–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1969/2002. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R.. 1992. “An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game.” Econometrica 60: 803–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijering, B., Van Maanen, L., Van Rijn, H., and Verbrugge, R.. 2010. “The Facilitative Effect of Context on Second-Order Social Reasoning.” In Catrambone, R. and Ohlsson, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1423–8. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Nagel, R. 1995. “Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review 85(5): 1313–26.Google Scholar
Selten, R. 2001. “What is Bounded Rationality?” In Gigerenzer, G. and Selten, R. (eds.), Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, pp. 13–36Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smead, R. 2008. “The Evolution of Cooperation in the Centipede Game with Finite Populations.” Philosophy of Science 75: 157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, D. O. 1996. “Boundedly Rational Rule Learning in a Guessing Game.” Games and Economic Behavior 16: 303–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahl, D. O. and Wilson, P. W.. 1995. “On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence.” Games and Economic Behavior 10: 218–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, P. 2010. Collective Rationality: Equilibrium in Cooperative Games. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar