IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/isfiwp/275834.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

\Isn't everyone like me?": On the presence of self-similarity in strategic interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Ruinstein, Ariel
  • Salant, Yuval

Abstract

After playing the Chicken game against an anonymous random opponent, players report their beliefs about their opponent's action. It is argued that the reported beliefs are not consistent with the standard theory of rational choice, which predicts a negative correlation between a player's action in the Chicken game and the probability he assigns to his opponent choosing the same action. It is also argued that the reported beliefs are in uenced by self-similarity considerations, whereby a player tends to think that other players behave similarly to him, and thus reports beliefs that gravitate toward his own action. Self-similarity considerations are stronger when players are asked about the distribution of actions in the population of potential opponents than when they are asked about their particular opponent.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruinstein, Ariel & Salant, Yuval, 2015. "\Isn't everyone like me?": On the presence of self-similarity in strategic interactions," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275834, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:isfiwp:275834
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.275834
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/275834/files/2-2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.275834?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. Segal, Uzi, 1993. "The Measure Representation: A Correction," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 99-107, 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. Folli, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2022. "Biases in belief reports," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Ali Al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2015. "Evidential Equilibria: Heuristics and Biases in Static Games of Complete Information," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-40, November.
    3. Dominik Bauer & Irenaeus Wolff, 2018. "Biases in Beliefs: Experimental Evidence," TWI Research Paper Series 109, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    4. Bauer, Dominik & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2019. "Biases in Beliefs," VfS Annual Conference 2019 (Leipzig): 30 Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall - Democracy and Market Economy 203601, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    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. Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2009. "Probability weighting and the ‘level’ and ‘spacing’ of outcomes: An experimental study over losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 45-63, August.
    2. Grant, Simon & Kajii, Atsushi, 1998. "AUSI expected utility: An anticipated utility theory of relative disappointment aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 277-290, November.
    3. Castagnoli, Erio & LiCalzi, Marco, 2006. "Benchmarking real-valued acts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 236-253, November.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:2:p:168-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Mikhail Sokolov, 2011. "Interval scalability of rank-dependent utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 255-282, March.
    6. Alain Chateauneuf & Michéle Cohen & Isaac Meilijson, 2005. "More pessimism than greediness: a characterization of monotone risk aversion in the rank-dependent expected utility model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 649-667, April.
    7. Alain Chateauneuf & Michèle Cohen, 2008. "Cardinal extensions of EU model based on the Choquet integral," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00348822, HAL.
    8. Wei-zhi Qin & Hendrik Rommeswinkel, 2024. "Quasi-separable preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 555-595, June.
    9. Edi Karni, 2024. "Ambiguity aversion, risk aversion, and the weight of evidence," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(4), pages 595-611, December.
    10. Zimper, Alexander, 2004. "On the Existence of Strategic Solutions for Games with Security- and Potential Level Players," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 04-04, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    11. Alexander Zimper, 2007. "Strategic games with security and potential level players," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 53-78, August.
    12. Chateauneuf, Alain, 1999. "Comonotonicity axioms and rank-dependent expected utility theory for arbitrary consequences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 21-45, August.
    13. Lasso de la Vega, Casilda & Volij, Oscar, 2018. "Ranking scholars: A measure representation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 510-517.
    14. Wakker, Peter, 1996. "The sure-thing principle and the comonotonic sure-thing principle: An axiomatic analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 213-227.
    15. Ariel Rubinstein & Yuval Salant, 2016. ""Isn't everyone like me?": On the presence of self-similarity in strategic interactions," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(2), pages 168-173, March.
    16. Veronika Köbberling & Peter P. Wakker, 2003. "Preference Foundations for Nonexpected Utility: A Generalized and Simplified Technique," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 395-423, August.
    17. LiCalzi, Marco, 1998. "Variations on the measure representation approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 255-269, April.
    18. Ulrich Schmidt, 2001. "Lottery Dependent Utility: a Reexamination," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 35-58, February.
    19. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial Economics;

    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:ags:isfiwp:275834. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fotauil.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.