IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v67y2021i10p6553-6567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bounded Rationality in Strategic Decisions: Undershooting in a Resource Pool-Choice Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher K. Hsee

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Ying Zeng

    (Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada)

  • Xilin Li

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

  • Alex Imas

    (Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637)

Abstract

This research studies a resource pool-choice dilemma , in which a group of resource seekers independently choose between a larger pool containing more resources and a smaller pool containing fewer resources, knowing that the resources in each pool will be divided equally among its choosers, so that the more (fewer) people choose a certain pool, the fewer (more) resources each of them will get. This setting corresponds to many real-world situations, ranging from students choosing majors as a function of job opportunities to entrepreneurs choosing markets as a function of customer bases. Ten studies reveal a systematic undershooting bias : fewer people choose the larger pool relative to both the normative equilibrium benchmark and chance (random choice), thus advantaging those who choose the larger pool and disadvantaging those who choose the smaller pool. We present evidence showing that the undershooting bias is driven by bounded rationality in strategic thinking and discuss the relationship between our paradigm and other coordination games.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher K. Hsee & Ying Zeng & Xilin Li & Alex Imas, 2021. "Bounded Rationality in Strategic Decisions: Undershooting in a Resource Pool-Choice Dilemma," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(10), pages 6553-6567, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:10:p:6553-6567
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3814
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3814?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincent P. Crawford & Uri Gneezy & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2008. "The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1443-1458, September.
    2. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    3. 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.
    4. Sundali, James A. & Rapoport, Amnon & Seale, Darryl A., 1995. "Coordination in Market Entry Games with Symmetric Players," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 203-218, November.
    5. Linde, Jona & Sonnemans, Joep & Tuinstra, Jan, 2014. "Strategies and evolution in the minority game: A multi-round strategy experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 77-95.
    6. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    7. Ho, Teck-Hua & Camerer, Colin & Weigelt, Keith, 1998. "Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best Response in Experimental "p-Beauty Contests."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 947-969, September.
    8. Tigran Melkonyan & Hossam Zeitoun & Nick Chater, 2018. "Collusion in Bertrand vs. Cournot Competition: A Virtual Bargaining Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5599-5610, December.
    9. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    10. Thorsten Chmura & Werner Güth, 2011. "The Minority of Three-Game: An Experimental and Theoretical Analysis," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Selten, R. & Chmura, T. & Pitz, T. & Kube, S. & Schreckenberg, M., 2007. "Commuters route choice behaviour," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 394-406, February.
    12. Vincent P. Crawford & Nagore Iriberri, 2007. "Fatal Attraction: Salience, Naïveté, and Sophistication in Experimental "Hide-and-Seek" Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1731-1750, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Challet, D. & Zhang, Y.-C., 1997. "Emergence of cooperation and organization in an evolutionary game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 407-418.
    15. Stahl, Dale II & Wilson, Paul W., 1994. "Experimental evidence on players' models of other players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 309-327, December.
    16. Mary Steffel & Robyn A. LeBoeuf, 2014. "Overindividuation in Gift Giving: Shopping for Multiple Recipients Leads Givers to Choose Unique but Less Preferred Gifts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(6), pages 1167-1180.
    17. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
    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. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    2. Berger, Ulrich & De Silva, Hannelore & Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde, 2016. "Cognitive hierarchies in the minimizer game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 337-348.
    3. Crawford, Vincent P., 2017. "Let׳s talk it over: Coordination via preplay communication with level-k thinking," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 20-31.
    4. Dufwenberg, Martin & Sundaram, Ramya & Butler, David J., 2010. "Epiphany in the Game of 21," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 132-143, August.
    5. Dimitris Batzilis & Sonia Jaffe & Steven Levitt & John A. List & Jeffrey Picel, 2019. "Behavior in Strategic Settings: Evidence from a Million Rock-Paper-Scissors Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-34, April.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Dengler, Sebastian & Prüfer, Jens, 2021. "Consumers' privacy choices in the era of big data," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 499-520.
    9. Binswanger, Johannes & Prüfer, Jens, 2012. "Democracy, populism, and (un)bounded rationality," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 358-372.
    10. 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.
    11. Giovanna Devetag & Francesca Pancotto & Thomas Brenner, 2011. "The Minority Game Unpacked: Coordination and Competition in a Team-based Experiment," LEM Papers Series 2011/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Kneeland, Terri, 2017. "Mechanism design with level-k types: Theory and an application to bilateral trade," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2017-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    17. Tong, Hanh T. & Freeman, David J., 2021. "Anchors of strategic reasoning in the traveler’s dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 28-38.
    18. Vincent P. Crawford & Miguel A. Costa-Gomes & Nagore Iriberri, 2010. "Strategic Thinking," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000001148, David K. Levine.
    19. Arad Ayala, 2012. "The Tennis Coach Problem: A Game-Theoretic and Experimental Study," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-43, April.
    20. Giovanna Devetag & Sibilla Guida & Luca Polonio, 2016. "An eye-tracking study of feature-based choice in one-shot games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 177-201, March.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:67:y:2021:i:10:p:6553-6567. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.