IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v29y2017i2p203-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mentally perceiving how means achieve ends

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    (MPI for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany; LUISS Guido Carli, Rome, Italy)

  • Matteo Ploner

    (CEEL-DEM, University of Trento, Italy)

Abstract

Mental modeling ranges from pure categorization, for example, of linguistic concepts, to cognitive representation of complex decision tasks involving stochastic uncertainty and strategic interaction. In the tradition of consequentialistic bounded rationality, we assume to choose among choice alternatives by anticipating their likely implications. Such deliberation basically requires causal relationships linking own choices (means) and determinants beyond own control, such as chance events and choices by others (scenarios), to the relevant outcome variables (ends). We suggest a general framework of mental representation whose aspects are illustrated for stochastic choice and strategic interaction tasks. We also discuss how this framework can be experimentally implemented, showing how experimental research can shed light on mental modeling and—more generally—cognitive processes, in addition to eliciting the usual choice data.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & Matteo Ploner, 2017. "Mentally perceiving how means achieve ends," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(2), pages 203-225, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:29:y:2017:i:2:p:203-225
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463116678114
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463116678114
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463116678114?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. Güth, Werner & Vittoria Levati, M. & Ploner, Matteo, 2010. "Satisficing in strategic environments: A theoretical approach and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 554-561, October.
    2. Arthur T. Denzau & Douglass C. North, 1994. "Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 3-31, February.
    3. Werner Güth & Maria Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2012. "Satisficing And Prior‐Free Optimality In Price Competition," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 50(2), pages 470-483, April.
    4. Hoff, Karla & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2016. "Striving for balance in economics: Towards a theory of the social determination of behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 25-57.
    5. Schelling, Thomas C, 1984. "Self-Command in Practice, in Policy, and in a Theory of Rational Choice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 1-11, May.
    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. Geanakoplos, John & Pearce, David & Stacchetti, Ennio, 1989. "Psychological games and sequential rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 60-79, March.
    8. Reinhard Selten, 2004. "Boundedly Rational Qualitative Reasoning on Comparative Statics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Steffen Huck (ed.), Advances in Understanding Strategic Behaviour, chapter 1, pages 1-8, Palgrave Macmillan.
    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. Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt, 2017. "How to Cope With (New) Uncertainties—A Bounded Rationality Approach," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 343-359, December.
    2. Christoph Engel & Werner Gueth, 2018. "Modeling a satisficing judge," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(2), pages 220-246, May.
    3. Güth, Werner, 2021. "(Un)bounded rationality of decision deliberation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 364-372.
    4. Daniela Di Cagno & Werner Güth & Noemi Pace, 2021. "Experimental evidence of behavioral improvement by learning and intermediate advice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 173-187, September.

    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. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Institutions as cognitive media between strategic interactions and individual beliefs," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 17, pages 298-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "What does “we” want? Team Reasoning, Game Theory, and Unselfish Behaviours," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(3), pages 311-332.
    3. Bodo Herzog & Stefanie Schnee, 2022. "Exploring a Dualism of Human Rationality: Experimental Study of a Cheating Contest Game," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    5. Juan Camilo Cárdenas & César Mantilla & Rajiv Sethi, 2015. "Stable Sampling Equilibrium in Common Pool Resource Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-19, August.
    6. Hoff, Karla & Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2016. "Striving for balance in economics: Towards a theory of the social determination of behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 25-57.
    7. Yuval Heller & Eyal Winter, 2020. "Biased-Belief Equilibrium," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 1-40, May.
    8. Morrison, William G., 1996. "Instincts as reflex choice: Does loss of temper have strategic value?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 335-356, December.
    9. Belianin, A., 2017. "Face to Face to Human Being: Achievements and Challenges of Behavioral Economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 166-175.
    10. Castagnetti, Alessandro & Proto, Eugenio, 2020. "Anger and Strategic Behavior: A Level-k Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 13661, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Beck, Adrian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Qiu, Jianying & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "Shaping beliefs in experimental markets for expert services: Guilt aversion and the impact of promises and money-burning options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 145-164.
    12. Christian Cordes, 2019. "The promises of a naturalistic approach: how cultural evolution theory can inform (evolutionary) economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 1241-1262, September.
    13. Marco LiCalzi & Roland Mühlenbernd, 2019. "Categorization and Cooperation across Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    14. McCannon, Bryan C. & Minuci, Eduardo, 2020. "Shill bidding and trust," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    15. Seth Frey & Robert L. Goldstone, 2018. "Cognitive mechanisms for human flocking dynamics," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 349-375, September.
    16. David Hirshleifer, 2020. "Presidential Address: Social Transmission Bias in Economics and Finance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 75(4), pages 1779-1831, August.
    17. Upravitelev, A., 2023. "Neoclassical roots of behavioral economics," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 58(1), pages 110-140.
    18. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Sacconi, Lorenzo, 2013. "Social responsibility, activism and boycotting in a firm–stakeholders network of games with players’ conformist preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 216-226.
    19. Olivier Coibion & Dimitris Georgarakos & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Maarten van Rooij, 2023. "How Does Consumption Respond to News about Inflation? Field Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 109-152, July.
    20. Brigitte Granville & Jaume Martorell Cruz & Martha Prevezer, 2015. "Elites, Thickets and Institutions: French Resistance versus German Adaptation to Economic Change, 1945-2015," Working Papers 63, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:29:y:2017:i:2:p:203-225. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.