IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.00412.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Effects of Incentives on Choices and Beliefs in Games: An Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Teresa Esteban-Casanelles
  • Duarte Gonc{c}alves

Abstract

How and why do incentive levels affect strategic behavior? This paper examines an experiment designed to identify the causal effect of scaling up incentives on choices and beliefs in strategic settings by holding fixed opponents' actions. In dominance-solvable games, higher incentives increase action sophistication and best-response rates and decrease mistake propensity. Beliefs tend to become more accurate with higher own incentives in simple games. However, opponents with higher incentive levels are harder to predict: while beliefs track opponents' behavior when they have higher incentive levels, beliefs about opponents also become more biased. We provide evidence that incentives affect cognitive effort and that greater effort increases performance and predicts choice and belief sophistication. Overall, the data lends support to combining both payoff-dependent mistakes and costly reasoning.

Suggested Citation

  • Teresa Esteban-Casanelles & Duarte Gonc{c}alves, 2023. "The Effects of Incentives on Choices and Beliefs in Games: An Experiment," Papers 2304.00412, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.00412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.00412
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mattsson, Lars-Goran & Weibull, Jorgen W., 2002. "Probabilistic choice and procedurally bounded rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 61-78, October.
    2. Drew Fudenberg & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Stochastic Choice and Revealed Perturbed Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 2371-2409, November.
    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. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    2. Fosgerau, Mogens & de Palma, André, 2015. "Demand systems for market shares," MPRA Paper 62106, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. André de Palma & Julien Monardo, 2017. "The General Nesting Logit (GNL) Model using Aggregate Data," Working Papers hal-01552455, HAL.
    4. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2021. "A Generalization of Quantal Response Equilibrium via Perturbed Utility," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Zhou, Jing, 2024. "Does correlation matter in probability matching? A laboratory investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 876-894.
    6. Mogens Fosgerau & Julien Monardo & André de Palma, 2024. "The Inverse Product Differentiation Logit Model," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 329-370, November.
    7. Mattsson, Lars-Göran & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2023. "An analytically solvable principal-agent model," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 33-49.
    8. Flynn, Joel P. & Sastry, Karthik A., 2023. "Strategic mistakes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    9. Steverson, Kai & Brandenburger, Adam & Glimcher, Paul, 2019. "Choice-theoretic foundations of the divisive normalization model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 148-165.
    10. Breitmoser, Yves, 2017. "Discrete Choice with Presentation Effects," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 35, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Daniele Caliari, 2024. "Imperfect discrimination, similarity, and stochastic transitivity," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 12(2), pages 199-209, December.
    12. Emerson Melo, 2022. "On the uniqueness of quantal response equilibria and its application to network games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 74(3), pages 681-725, October.
    13. Tsakas, Elias & Voorneveld, Mark, 2009. "The target projection dynamic," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 708-719, November.
    14. Lindbeck, Assar & Weibull, Jörgen, 2020. "Delegation of investment decisions, and optimal remuneration of agents," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Suren Basov & Svetlana Danilkina & David Prentice, 2020. "When Does Variety Increase with Quality?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 463-487, May.
    16. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2019. "Deliberately Stochastic," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2425-2445, July.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Deliberately Stochastic," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 May 2017.
    17. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2020. "Identification of Random Coefficient Latent Utility Models," Papers 2003.00276, arXiv.org.
    18. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    19. Ubøe, Jan & Andersson, Jonas & Jörnsten, Kurt & Lillestøl, Jostein & Sandal, Leif K., 2014. "Probabilistic cost efficiency and bounded rationality in the newsvendor model," Discussion Papers 2014/41, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    20. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2304.00412. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.