IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v15y2012i3p444-459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Circadian effects on strategic reasoning

Author

Listed:
  • David Dickinson
  • Todd McElroy

Abstract

The ability to strategically reason is important in many competitive environments. In this paper, we examine how relatively mild temporal variations in cognition affect reasoning in the Beauty Contest. The source of temporal cognition variation that we explore is the time-of-day that decisions are made. Our first result is that circadian mismatched subjects (i.e., those making decisions at off-peak time of day) display lower levels of strategic reasoning in the p>1 Beauty Contest but not in the p>1 game. This suggests that a cognitively more challenging environment is required for circadian mismatch to harm strategic reasoning. A second result is that choice adaptation or mimicry (i.e., a more automatic type of responding than what is typically considered to be “learning”) during repeated play is not significantly affected by circadian mismatch. This is consistent with the hypothesis that automatic thought is more resilient to cognitive resource depletion than controlled-thought decision making. Copyright Economic Science Association 2012

Suggested Citation

  • David Dickinson & Todd McElroy, 2012. "Circadian effects on strategic reasoning," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 444-459, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:15:y:2012:i:3:p:444-459
    DOI: 10.1007/s10683-011-9307-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10683-011-9307-3
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10683-011-9307-3?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & José G. Montalvo & Rosemarie Nagel & Albert Satorra, 2002. "One, Two, (Three), Infinity, ...: Newspaper and Lab Beauty-Contest Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1687-1701, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Duffy, John & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1997. "On the Robustness of Behaviour in Experimental "Beauty Contest" Games," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1684-1700, November.
    4. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    5. Stahl, Dale O., 1996. "Boundedly Rational Rule Learning in a Guessing Game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 303-330, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Weber, Roberto A., 2003. "'Learning' with no feedback in a competitive guessing game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 134-144, July.
    8. Grosskopf, Brit & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2008. "The two-person beauty contest," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 93-99, January.
    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. David L. Dickinson & Andrew R. Smith & Robert McClelland, 2019. "An Examination of Circadian Impacts on Judgments," Working Papers 19-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    2. Dickinson, David L. & Chaudhuri, Ananish & Greenaway-McGrevy, Ryan, 2017. "Trading While Sleepy? Circadian Mismatch and Excess Volatility in a Global Experimental Asset Market," IZA Discussion Papers 10984, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Oyebode, B.I. & Nicholls, N., 2021. "Does the timing of assessment matter? Circadian mismatch and reflective processing in university students," International Review of Economics Education, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    4. Luo, Anqi & Mattila, Anna S., 2023. "When and how to sell pleasurably painful experiences," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    5. Glenn Dutcher, E., 2012. "The effects of telecommuting on productivity: An experimental examination. The role of dull and creative tasks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 355-363.
    6. Marco Castillo & David L. Dickinson & Ragan Petrie, 2017. "Sleepiness, choice consistency, and risk preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(1), pages 41-73, January.
    7. Allred, Sarah & Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2016. "Cognitive load and strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 162-178.
    8. David L. Dickinson & Ananish Chaudhuri & Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy, 2020. "Trading while sleepy? Circadian mismatch and mispricing in a global experimental asset market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 526-553, June.
    9. Dickinson, David L. & McElroy, Todd, 2017. "Sleep restriction and circadian effects on social decisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 57-71.

    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. 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.
    2. C. Mónica Capra, 2019. "Understanding decision processes in guessing games: a protocol analysis approach," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 123-135, August.
    3. Grosskopf, Brit & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2008. "The two-person beauty contest," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 93-99, January.
    4. Shu-Heng Chen & Ye-Rong Du & Lee-Xieng Yang, 2014. "Cognitive capacity and cognitive hierarchy: a study based on beauty contest experiments," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 69-105, April.
    5. Sonnemans, Joep & Tuinstra, Jan, 2010. "Positive expectations feedback experiments and number guessing games as models of financial markets," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 964-984, December.
    6. Choo, Lawrence C.Y & Kaplan, Todd R., 2014. "Explaining Behavior in the "11-20" Game," MPRA Paper 52808, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Zafer Akin, 2023. "Asymmetric guessing games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 637-676, May.
    8. Mauersberger, Felix & Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph, 2020. "Bounded rationality in Keynesian beauty contests: A lesson for central bankers?," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-38.
    9. Wanqun Zhao, 2020. "Cost of Reasoning and Strategic Sophistication," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-27, September.
    10. Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Individual or team decision-making--Causes and consequences of self-selection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 259-270, August.
    11. Gill, David & Prowse, Victoria, 2012. "Cognitive ability and learning to play equilibrium: A level-k analysis," MPRA Paper 38317, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 23 Apr 2012.
    12. Mazzocco, Ketti & Cherubini, Anna Maria & Cherubini, Paolo, 2013. "On the short horizon of spontaneous iterative reasoning in logical puzzles and games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 24-40.
    13. Martin Kocher & Matthias Sutter & Florian Wakolbinger, 2014. "Social Learning in Beauty‐Contest Games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(3), pages 586-613, January.
    14. Teck-Hua Ho & So-Eun Park & Xuanming Su, 2021. "A Bayesian Level- k Model in n -Person Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1622-1638, March.
    15. Søvik, Ylva, 2009. "Strength of dominance and depths of reasoning--An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 196-205, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Mariano Runco, 2013. "Estimating depth of reasoning in a repeated guessing game with no feedback," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 402-413, September.
    18. Robert Slonim, 2005. "Competing Against Experienced and Inexperienced Players," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 55-75, April.
    19. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    20. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner, 2020. "The one player guessing game: a diagnosis on the relationship between equilibrium play, beliefs, and best responses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1129-1147, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Guessing game; Sleep; Circadian mismatch; Experiments; Rationality; C92; C70; D83;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    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:kap:expeco:v:15:y:2012:i:3:p:444-459. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.