IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2502.11243.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Narrow Bracketing and Risk in Games

Author

Listed:
  • Fedor Sandomirskiy
  • Po Hyun Sung
  • Omer Tamuz
  • Ben Wincelberg

Abstract

We study finite normal-form games under a narrow bracketing assumption: when players play several games simultaneously, they consider each one separately. We show that under mild additional assumptions, players must play either Nash equilibria, logit quantal response equilibria, or their generalizations, which capture players with various risk attitudes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fedor Sandomirskiy & Po Hyun Sung & Omer Tamuz & Ben Wincelberg, 2025. "Narrow Bracketing and Risk in Games," Papers 2502.11243, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2502.11243
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.11243
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2024. "An axiomatic characterization of Nash equilibrium," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(4), November.
    4. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    5. Osborne, Martin J & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1998. "Games with Procedurally Rational Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 834-847, September.
    6. McKelvey, Richard D. & Palfrey, Thomas R. & Weber, Roberto A., 2000. "The effects of payoff magnitude and heterogeneity on behavior in 2 x 2 games with unique mixed strategy equilibria," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 523-548, August.
    7. Srihari Govindan & Robert Wilson, 2009. "Axiomatic Theory of Equilibrium Selection for Games with Two Players, Perfect Information, and Generic Payoffs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000125, David K. Levine.
    8. Voorneveld, Mark, 2019. "An axiomatization of the Nash equilibrium concept," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 316-321.
    9. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2003. "Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-113, October.
    10. Avoyan, Ala & Schotter, Andrew, 2020. "Attention in games: An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2019. "Justifying optimal play via consistency," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(4), November.
    12. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.
    13. Feddersen, Timothy & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 1998. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(1), pages 23-35, March.
    14. Norde, Henk & Potters, Jos & Reijnierse, Hans & Vermeulen, Dries, 1996. "Equilibrium Selection and Consistency," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 219-225, February.
    15. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "Quantal Response Equilibrium:A Stochastic Theory of Games," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10743.
    16. Jonathan Weinstein, 2016. "The Effect of Changes in Risk Attitude on Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1881-1902, September.
    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. Beggs, Alan, 2021. "Games with second-order expected utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 569-590.
    2. Alan Kirman & François Laisney & Paul Pezanis-Christou, 2023. "Relaxing the symmetry assumption in participation games: a specification test for cluster-heterogeneity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 850-878, September.
    3. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    4. Srinivas Arigapudi & Yuval Heller & Amnon Schreiber, 2023. "Heterogeneous Noise and Stable Miscoordination," Papers 2305.10301, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    5. Christoph Kuzmics & Daniel Rodenburger, 2020. "A case of evolutionarily stable attainable equilibrium in the laboratory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 685-721, October.
    6. Andrea Gallice, 2006. "Predicting one Shot Play in 2x2 Games Using Beliefs Based on Minimax Regret," Working Papers 2006.31, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Cason, Timothy N. & Lau, Sau-Him Paul & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2019. "Prior interaction, identity, and cooperation in the Inter-group Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 613-629.
    8. Brandl, Florian & Brandt, Felix, 2024. "An axiomatic characterization of Nash equilibrium," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 19(4), November.
    9. Gallice, Andrea, 2007. "Best Responding to What? A Behavioral Approach to One Shot Play in 2x2 Games," Discussion Papers in Economics 1365, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    10. Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "A unified approach to comparative statics puzzles in experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 212-223, January.
    11. Kirman, Alan P. & Laisney, François & Pezanis-Christou, Paul, 2018. "Exploration vs exploitation, impulse balance equilibrium, and a specification test for the El Farol bar problem," ZEW Discussion Papers 18-038, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Jacob K. Goeree & Philippos Louis, 2021. "M Equilibrium: A Theory of Beliefs and Choices in Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(12), pages 4002-4045, December.
    13. Külpmann, Philipp & Kuzmics, Christoph, 2022. "Comparing theories of one-shot play out of treatment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    14. Ge, Ge & Godager, Geir, 2021. "Predicting strategic medical choices: An application of a quantal response equilibrium choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    16. Zhang, Boyu & Hofbauer, Josef, 2016. "Quantal response methods for equilibrium selection in 2×2 coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 19-31.
    17. Isabelle Brocas & Juan D. Carrillo, 2022. "The development of randomization and deceptive behavior in mixed strategy games," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(2), pages 825-862, May.
    18. Calford, Evan M., 2020. "Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 720-734.
    19. Heijmans, Roweno J.R.K. & Suetens, Sigrid, 2025. "Comparing Subsidies to Solve Coordination Failure," Discussion Papers 2025/9, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science.
    20. Breitmoser, Yves, 2019. "Knowing me, imagining you: Projection and overbidding in auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 423-447.

    More about this item

    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:2502.11243. 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.