IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v37y2001i2p415-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Game Theory via Revealed Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Ray, Indrajit
  • Zhou, Lin

Abstract

We investigate equilibrium notions in game theory from the revealed preference approach. For extensive game forms with complete information, we derive a set of independent necessary and sufficient conditions for the observed outcomes to be rationalized by subgame perfect Nash equilibrium.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ray, Indrajit & Zhou, Lin, 2001. "Game Theory via Revealed Preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 415-424, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:37:y:2001:i:2:p:415-424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899-8256(01)90845-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peleg, Bezalel & Tijs, Stef, 1996. "The Consistency Principle for Games in Strategic Forms," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 25(1), pages 13-34.
    2. Sprumont, Yves, 2000. "On the Testable Implications of Collective Choice Theories," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 205-232, August.
    3. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dufwenberg, M. & Norde, H.W. & Reijnierse, J.H. & Tijs, S.H., 1997. "The consistency principle for set-valued solutions and a new direction for the theory of equilibrium refinements," Discussion Paper 1997-34, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    3. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    4. Kets, W., 2008. "Networks and learning in game theory," Other publications TiSEM 7713fce1-3131-498c-8c6f-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Ray, Indrajit & Snyder, Susan, 2013. "Observable implications of Nash and subgame-perfect behavior in extensive games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 471-477.
    6. Lee, SangMok, 2012. "The testable implications of zero-sum games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
    7. Shi, Yi & Deng, Yawen & Wang, Guoan & Xu, Jiuping, 2020. "Stackelberg equilibrium-based eco-economic approach for sustainable development of kitchen waste disposal with subsidy policy: A case study from China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    8. Cheng‐Kuang Wu & Yi‐Ming Chen & Dachrahn Wu & Ching‐Lin Chi, 2020. "A Game Theory Approach for Assessment of Risk and Deployment of Police Patrols in Response to Criminal Activity in San Francisco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(3), pages 534-549, March.
    9. Müller, Christoph, 2020. "Robust implementation in weakly perfect Bayesian strategies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    10. Martin Meier & Burkhard Schipper, 2014. "Bayesian games with unawareness and unawareness perfection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 219-249, June.
    11. Hitoshi Matsushima, 2019. "Implementation without expected utility: ex-post verifiability," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 575-585, December.
    12. Dasgupta Utteeyo, 2011. "Are Entry Threats Always Credible?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-41, December.
    13. Baran Han, 2018. "The role and welfare rationale of secondary sanctions: A theory and a case study of the US sanctions targeting Iran," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 474-502, September.
    14. Carlos Pimienta & Jianfei Shen, 2014. "On the equivalence between (quasi-)perfect and sequential equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(2), pages 395-402, May.
    15. Asheim, Geir & Søvik, Ylva, 2003. "The semantics of preference-based belief operators," Memorandum 05/2003, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Wang, Yafeng & Graham, Brett, 2009. "Generalized Maximum Entropy estimation of discrete sequential move games of perfect information," MPRA Paper 21331, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Karbowski, Adam, 2011. "O kilku modelach samolubnego karania w ekonomii behawioralnej [Evolution of altruism in the light of behavioral economics]," MPRA Paper 69604, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Ricardo F. Reis & Phillip C. Stocken, 2007. "Strategic Consequences of Historical Cost and Fair Value Measurements," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 557-584, June.
    19. Costello, Christopher & Molina, Renato, 2021. "Transboundary marine protected areas," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    20. Martin Hellwig & Felix Bierbrauer, 2009. "Public Good Provision in a Large Economy," 2009 Meeting Papers 1062, Society for Economic Dynamics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:37:y:2001:i:2:p:415-424. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.