Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2x2 Games

Five stationary concepts for completely mixed 2 x 2-games are experimentally compared: Nash equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium (Martin J. Osborne and Ariel Rubinstein 1998), and impulse balance equilibrium. Experiments on 12 games, 6 constant sum games, and 6 nonconstant sum games were run with 12 independent subject groups for each constant sum game and 6 independent subject groups for each nonconstant sum game. Each independent subject group consisted of four players 1 and four players 2, interacting anonymously over 200 periods with random matching. The comparison of the five theories shows that the order of performance from best to worst is as follows: impulse balance equilibrium, payoff-sampling equilibrium, action-sampling equilibrium, quantal response equilibrium, Nash equilibrium.

[1]  Sebastian J. Goerg,et al.  Experimental investigation of stationary concepts in cyclic duopoly games , 2009 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[3]  Syngjoo Choi,et al.  A Theory and Experiments of Learning in Social Networks , 2004 .

[4]  Werner Güth,et al.  Games of Competition in a Stochastic Environment , 2005 .

[5]  R. Selten,et al.  Learning Direction Theory and the Winner’s Curse , 2005 .

[6]  Axel Ockenfels,et al.  Impulse balance equilibrium and feedback in first price auctions , 2002, Games Econ. Behav..

[7]  Jason Shachat,et al.  Learning About Learning in Games Through Experimental Control of Strategic Interdependence , 2003 .

[8]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  Sampling equilibrium, with an application to strategic voting , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[9]  Jacob K. Goeree,et al.  Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games , 2003, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  K. Binmore,et al.  Does Minimax Work? An Experimental Study , 2001 .

[11]  The parasite game: Exploiting the abundance of nature in face of competition , 2001 .

[12]  J. Wooders,et al.  Minimax Play at Wimbledon , 2001 .

[13]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  The effects of payoff magnitude and heterogeneity on behavior in 2 x 2 games with unique mixed strategy equilibria , 2000 .

[14]  T. Palfrey,et al.  Risk Averse Behavior in Asymmetric Matching Pennies Games , 2000 .

[15]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Pattern span: a tool for unwelding visuo–spatial memory , 1999, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[17]  S. Hart,et al.  A simple adaptive procedure leading to correlated equilibrium , 2000 .

[18]  A. Rubinstein,et al.  Games with Procedurally Rational Players , 1997 .

[19]  Klaus Abbink,et al.  RatImage - research Assistance Toolbox for Computer-Aided Human Behavior Experiments , 1995 .

[20]  J. Ochs.  Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria: An Experimental Study , 1995 .

[21]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games , 1995 .

[22]  R. Selten,et al.  Experimental Sealed Bid First Price Auctions with Directly Observed Bid Functions , 1994 .

[23]  B. O'Neill.  Nonmetric test of the minimax theory of two-person zerosum games. , 1987, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[25]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[26]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[27]  Knox Cube Test and Digit Span , 1932 .

[28]  C. Murchison.  Intelligence of Foreign Born Criminal Recidivists , 1925 .