IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01589566.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Larrouy

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Guilhem Lecouteux

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

Abstract

We argue that a Bayesian explanation of strategic choices in games requires introducing a psychological theory of belief formation. We highlight that beliefs in epistemic game theory are derived from the actual choice of the players, and cannot therefore explain why Bayesian rational players should play the strategy they actually chose. We introduce the players’ capacity of mindreading in a game theoretical framework with the simulation theory, and characterise the beliefs that Bayes rational players could endogenously form in games. We show in particular that those beliefs need not be ratifiable, and therefore that rational players can form action-dependent beliefs.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Post-Print halshs-01589566, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01589566
    DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2017.1335425
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Colman & Michael Bacharach, 1997. "Payoff Dominance And The Stackelberg Heuristic," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 318-343, July.
    3. Viktor J. Vanberg, 2008. "On the Economics of Moral Preferences," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(4), pages 605-628, October.
    4. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1982. "Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 113-120, February.
    5. Andrés Perea, 2014. "From Classical To Epistemic Game Theory," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 1-22.
    6. Joseph B. Kadane & Patrick D. Larkey, 1982. "Reply to Professor Harsanyi," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 124-124, February.
    7. Robert J. Aumann & Jacques H. Dreze, 2008. "Rational Expectations in Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 72-86, March.
    8. Aumann, Robert J, 1987. "Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Marco Mariotti, 1997. "Decisions in games: why there should be a special exemption from Bayesian rationality," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 43-60.
    10. Michael Bacharach, 2006. "The Hi-Lo Paradox, from Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory," Introductory Chapters, in: Natalie Gold & Robert Sugden (ed.),Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Princeton University Press.
    11. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107695122, September.
    12. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    13. Battalio, Raymond & Samuelson, Larry & Van Huyck, John, 2001. "Optimization Incentives and Coordination Failure in Laboratory Stag Hunt Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 749-764, May.
    14. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107015432, September.
    15. Itzhak Gilboa, 1992. "Why the Empty Shells Were Not Fired: A Semi-Bibliographical Note," Discussion Papers 987, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. Alvin E. Roth & Françoise Schoumaker, 1983. "Note---Subjective Probability and the Theory of Games: Some Further Comments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(11), pages 1337-1340, November.
    17. Stalnaker, Robert, 1996. "Knowledge, Belief and Counterfactual Reasoning in Games," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 133-163, October.
    18. Morris, Stephen, 1995. "The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 227-253, October.
    19. repec:bla:econom:v:40:y:1973:i:159:p:241-59 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Haruvy, Ernan & Stahl, Dale O. & Wilson, Paul W., 1999. "Evidence for optimistic and pessimistic behavior in normal-form games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 255-259, June.
    21. John C. Harsanyi, 1982. "Rejoinder to Professors Kadane and Larkey," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 124-125, February.
    22. Mariotti, Marco, 1995. "Is Bayesian Rationality Compatible with Strategic Rationality?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(432), pages 1099-1109, September.
    23. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    24. Hillas, John & Kohlberg, Elon, 2002. "Foundations of strategic equilibrium," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 42, pages 1597-1663, Elsevier.
    25. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195300574.
    26. Masel, Joanna, 2007. "A Bayesian model of quasi-magical thinking can explain observed cooperation in the public good game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 216-231, October.
    27. Ken Binmore, 2007. "Does Game Theory Work? The Bargaining Challenge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262026074, April.
    28. Ken Binmore, 1998. "Game Theory and the Social Contract - Vol. 2: Just Playing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 2, number 0262024446, April.
    29. Ken Binmore, 1994. "Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262023636, April.
    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. Cilem Selin Hazir & Flora Bellone & Cyrielle Gaglio, 2019. "Local product space and firm-level churning in exported products," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(6), pages 1473-1496.
    2. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    3. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Choosing in a Large World: The Role of Focal Points as a Mindshaping Device," Working Papers halshs-01923244, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1f59r6ssre9eiqb2rso9ui50m2 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Nicolas Brisset, 2017. "What Do We Learn from Market Design?," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-03, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    7. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2017. "Mindreading and endogenous beliefs in games," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 318-343, July.
    8. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/1f59r6ssre9eiqb2rso9ui50m2 is not listed 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. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    2. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    3. R. J. Aumann & J. H. Dreze, 2005. "When All is Said and Done, How Should You Play and What Should You Expect?," Discussion Paper Series dp387, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    4. Arnaud Wolff, 2019. "On the Function of Beliefs in Strategic Social Interactions," Working Papers of BETA 2019-41, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. Binmore, Ken, 2015. "Rationality," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    6. Lauren Larrouy & Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Choosing in a Large World: The Role of Focal Points as a Mindshaping Device," Working Papers halshs-01923244, HAL.
    7. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    8. Radzvilas, Mantas & Karpus, Jurgis, 2021. "Team reasoning without a hive mind," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 345-353.
    9. Michael H. Rothkopf, 2007. "Decision Analysis: The Right Tool for Auctions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 167-172, September.
    10. Vitaly Pruzhansky, 2004. "A Discussion of Maximin," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-028/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. 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.
    12. Vittorio Pelligra, 2011. "Intentions, Trust and Frames: A Note on Sociality and the Theory of Games," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(2), pages 163-188.
    13. Fabrizio Germano & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2017. "Bounded rationality and correlated equilibria," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(3), pages 595-629, August.
    14. Gerardo Infante & Guilhem Lecouteux & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, March.
    15. Cyril Hédoin, 2016. "Community-Based Reasoning in Games: Salience, Rule-Following, and Counterfactuals," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    16. Joseph Y. Halpern & Rafael Pass, 2018. "Game theory with translucent players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 949-976, September.
    17. Hillas, John & Samet, Dov, 2022. "Non-Bayesian correlated equilibrium as an expression of non-Bayesian rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2021. "Who's Afraid of Incoherence? Behavioural Welfare Economics and the Sovereignty of the Neoclassical Consumer," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-01, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    19. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    20. Marek Jenöffy-Lochau, 2012. "On the Origin of Preferences," Post-Print hal-04139344, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    prior beliefs; mindreading; simulation; action-dependent beliefs; choice under uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:hal:journl:halshs-01589566. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.