IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v9y2018i3p53-d159749.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choices in the 11–20 Game: The Role of Risk Aversion

Author

Listed:
  • King King Li

    (College of Business, Department of Economics and Finance, and CityU HK Experimental Economics Lab, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Hong Kong, China)

  • Kang Rong

    (School of Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, 777 Guoding Road, Shanghai 200433, China)

Abstract

Arad and Rubinstein (2012, AER) proposed the 11–20 money request game as an alternative to the P beauty contest game for measuring the depth of thinking. In this paper, we show theoretically that in the Nash equilibrium of the 11–20 game players are more likely to choose high numbers if they are risk-averse rather than risk neutral. Hence, the depth of thinking measured in the 11–20 game is biased by risk aversion. Based on a lab experiment, we confirm this hypothesis empirically.

Suggested Citation

  • King King Li & Kang Rong, 2018. "Choices in the 11–20 Game: The Role of Risk Aversion," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-14, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:9:y:2018:i:3:p:53-:d:159749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/9/3/53/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/9/3/53/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes, 2006. "Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1737-1768, December.
    2. Georganas, Sotiris & Healy, Paul J. & Weber, Roberto A., 2015. "On the persistence of strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 369-400.
    3. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2016. "Endogenous Depth of Reasoning," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(4), pages 1297-1333.
    4. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    5. Jacob K. Goeree & Philippos Louis & Jingjing Zhang, 2018. "Noisy Introspection in the 11–20 Game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(611), pages 1509-1530, June.
    6. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2004. "A model of noisy introspection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 365-382, February.
    7. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    8. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2012. "The 11-20 Money Request Game: A Level-k Reasoning Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3561-3573, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gisèle Umbhauer, 2021. "Minimax regret in the 11-20 money request game," Working Papers of BETA 2021-48, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Açıkgöz, Bernur & Dubois, Dimitri & Nguyen-Huu, Adrien & Duchêne, Sébastien & Willinger, Marc, 2024. "Depth of reasoning in the 11–20 game differs between financial professionals and students. A lab-in-the-field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).

    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. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    2. Alaoui, Larbi & Janezic, Katharina A. & Penta, Antonio, 2020. "Reasoning about others' reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Feng, Jun & Qin, Xiangdong & Wang, Xiaoyuan, 2021. "A Bayesian cognitive hierarchy model with fixed reasoning levels," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 704-723.
    5. Bayer, Ralph C. & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Logical omniscience at the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-49.
    6. Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Koriyama, Yukio & Sutan, Angela & Willinger, Marc, 2019. "The strategic environment effect in beauty contest games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 587-610.
    7. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    8. Bayer, R.-C. & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Logical abilities and behavior in strategic-form games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 39-59.
    9. James Tremewan & Chloé Le Coq & Alexander D. Wagner, 2013. "Social Centipedes: the Impact of Group Identity on Preferences and Reasoning," Vienna Economics Papers 1305, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    10. Le Coq, Chloé & Tremewan, James & Wagner, Alexander K., 2015. "On the effects of group identity in strategic environments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 239-252.
    11. Wanqun Zhao, 2020. "Cost of Reasoning and Strategic Sophistication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, September.
    12. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.
    13. Ye Jin, 2021. "Does level-k behavior imply level-k thinking?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 330-353, March.
    14. Li, Ying Xue & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2020. "Strategic reasoning in persuasion games: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 329-367.
    15. Choo, Lawrence & Kaplan, Todd R. & Zhou, Xiaoyu, 2019. "Can auctions select people by their level-k types?," MPRA Paper 95987, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Wei James Chen & Meng-Jhang Fong & Po-Hsuan Lin, 2023. "Measuring Higher-Order Rationality with Belief Control," Papers 2309.07427, arXiv.org.
    17. Kyle Hyndman & Antoine Terracol & Jonathan Vaksmann, 2022. "Beliefs and (in)stability in normal-form games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1146-1172, September.
    18. Wright, James R. & Leyton-Brown, Kevin, 2017. "Predicting human behavior in unrepeated, simultaneous-move games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 16-37.
    19. Healy, Paul J. & Park, Hyoeun, 2023. "Model selection accuracy in behavioral game theory: A simulation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Going...going...wrong: a test of the level-k (and cognitive hierarchy) models of bidding behaviour," Economics Series Working Papers 959, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.

    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:gam:jgames:v:9:y:2018:i:3:p:53-:d:159749. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.