Advertisement

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 113–136 | Cite as

Order of play in strategically equivalent games in extensive form

  • Amnon Rapoport
Article

Abstract

“Can we find a pair of extensive form games that give rise to the same strategic form game such that, when played by a reasonable subject population, there is a statistically significant difference in how the games are played?” (Kreps, 1990, p. 112). And if yes, “can we organize these significant differences according to some principles that reflect recognizable differences in the extensive forms?” Both questions are answered positively by reporting results from three different experiments on public goods provision, resource dilemmas, and pure coordination games.

Keywords

Public Good Economic Theory Game Theory Extensive Form Form Game 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Suleiman R (1990). Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. European Journal of Social Psychology 20:475–487Google Scholar
  2. Budescu DV, Rapoport A, Suleiman R (1992) Simultaneous vs. sequential requests in resource dilemmas with incomplete information. Acta Psychologica 80: 297–310Google Scholar
  3. Budescu DV, Suleiman R, Rapoport A (in press) Positional order effects in social dilemmas games with uncertain resources. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 61: 225–238Google Scholar
  4. Cooper R, De Jong DV, Forsythe R, Ross TW (1990) Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results. American Economic Review 80: 218–233Google Scholar
  5. Crawford VP (1991) An “evolutionary” interpretation of Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil's experimental results on coordination. Games and Economic Behavior 3: 25–59Google Scholar
  6. Erev I, Rapoport A (1990) Provision of step-level public goods: The sequential contribution mechanism. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34: 401–425Google Scholar
  7. Harrison GW, Hirshleifer J (1989) An experimental evaluation of the weakest link/best shot model of public goods. Journal of Political Economics 92: 201–215Google Scholar
  8. Hoffman E, McCabe K, Schachat K, Smith V (in press) Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic BehaviorGoogle Scholar
  9. Kohlberg E, Mertens J-F (1986) On the strategic stability of equilibrium. Econometrica 54: 1003–1037Google Scholar
  10. Kreps DM (1990) Game theory and economic modelling. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Luce RD (1992) Rational versus plausible accounting equivalences in preference judgments. In Edwards W (Ed.): Utility theories: Measurements and applications. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston: 187–206Google Scholar
  12. Page EB (1963) Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: A significance test for linear ranks. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58: 216–230Google Scholar
  13. Rapoport A (1985) Provision of public goods and the MCS experimental paradigm. American Political Science Review 79: 149–155Google Scholar
  14. Rapoport A (1987) Research paradigms and expected utility models for the provision of step-level public goods. Psychological Review 94: 74–83Google Scholar
  15. Rapoport A, Budescu DV, Suleiman R (1993) Sequential requests from randomly distributed shared resources. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 37: 241–265Google Scholar
  16. Rapoport A, Budescu DV, Suleiman R, Weg E (1992) Social dilemmas with uniformly distributed resources. In Liebrand WBG, Messick DM, Wilke HAM (Eds.): A social psychological approach to social dilemmas. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY: 43–57Google Scholar
  17. Rapoport A, Erev I (in press). Provision of step level public goods: Effects of different information structures. In Schulz U, Albers W, and Mueller U (Eds.): Social dilemmas and cooperation. Springer-Verlag New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Rapoport A, Suleiman R (1992) Equilibrium solutions for resource dilemmas. Group Decision and Negotiation 1: 269–294Google Scholar
  19. Roth AE (1995) Bargaining experiments. In Kagel J, Roth AE (Eds.): Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  20. Schelling T (1960) The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  21. Schelling T (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. Norton New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Schotter A, Weigelt K, Wilson C (1991) A laboratory investigation of multi-person rationality and presentation effects. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Economics, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Suleiman R, Rapoport A (1988) Environmental and social uncertainty in single-trial social dilemmas. Acta Psychologica 68: 99–112Google Scholar
  24. Van de Kragt AJC, Orbell JM, Dawes RM (1983) The minimal contributing set as a solution to public goods problems. American Political Science Review 77: 112–122Google Scholar
  25. Van Huyck, JB, Battalio RC, Beil RD (1990) Tacit coordination games, strategic uncertainty, and coordination failure. American Economic Review 80: 234–248Google Scholar
  26. Van Huyck JB, Battalio RC, Beil RD (1991) Strategic uncertainty, equilibrium selection, and coordination failure in average opinion games. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 885–910Google Scholar
  27. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior, (2nd Ed.) Princeton University Press PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amnon Rapoport
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management and PolicyUniversity of ArizonaTusconUSA

Personalised recommendations