A Notion of Prominence for Strategic Games

Identifying the best course of action in games with multiple equilibria is a longstanding unresolved issue in strategic interaction. The concept of prominence as a criterion for equilibrium selection has been suggested, but has remained for the most part an informal notion, without a psychologically grounded characterization. In this paper we propose one such characterization: by drawing on existing theories of human memory, language, and decision making we define prominence in terms of frequency of exposure. In particular, we consider games where strategies are denoted by natural language labels, and we measure the prominence of each strategy by how often its label occurs in natural language corpora. Our specification of prominence yields sharp quantitative predictions about behavior in coordination and discoordination problems. Here we present three studies designed to test such predictions, and show that individuals do select strategies that fulfill our definition of prominence and they furthermore do so in a (boundedly) rational manner.

[1]  T. Schelling,et al.  The Strategy of Conflict. , 1961 .

[2]  D. McFadden Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[3]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[5]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[6]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Judged frequency of lethal events , 1978 .

[7]  John C. Harsanyi,et al.  Общая теория выбора равновесия в играх / A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games , 1989 .

[8]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Reflections of the Environment in Memory Form of the Memory Functions , 2022 .

[9]  R. Sugden,et al.  The Nature of Salience: An Experimental Investigation of Pure Coordination Games , 1994 .

[10]  D. Stahl,et al.  On Players' Models of Other Players: Theory and Experimental Evidence , 1995 .

[11]  R. Sugden A Theory of Focal Points , 1995 .

[12]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[13]  Michael Bacharach,et al.  The Variable Frame Theory of Focal Points: An Experimental Study , 1997 .

[14]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study , 1998 .

[15]  C. Gettys,et al.  MINERVA-DM: A memory processes model for judgments of likelihood. , 1999 .

[16]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. , 2002, Psychological review.

[17]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Cognition and Behavior in Two-Person Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 2003 .

[18]  Colin Camerer,et al.  A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games , 2004 .

[19]  R. Hertwig,et al.  How forgetting aids heuristic inference. , 2005, Psychological review.

[20]  R. Aumann,et al.  Unraveling in Guessing Games : An Experimental Study , 2007 .

[21]  T. Griffiths,et al.  Google and the Mind , 2007, Psychological science.

[22]  V. Crawford,et al.  The Power of Focal Points Is Limited: Even Minute Payoff Asymmetry May Yield Large Coordination Failures , 2008 .

[23]  Rick P. Thomas,et al.  Psychological plausibility of the theory of probabilistic mental models and the fast and frugal heuristics. , 2008, Psychological review.

[24]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation , 2009, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[25]  R. Sugden,et al.  Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory Versus Team Reasoning , 2009 .

[26]  Pravin K. Trivedi,et al.  Microeconometrics Using Stata: Revised Edition , 2010 .

[27]  Erez Lieberman Aiden,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books , 2010, Science.

[28]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications , 2013 .

[29]  R. Hertwig,et al.  The ecological validity of fluency , 2013 .

[30]  Robert Sugden,et al.  How Portable Is Level-0 Behavior? A Test of Level-k Theory in Games With Non-Neutral Frames , 2014 .

[31]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  Culture-dependent strategies in coordination games , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.