A Dynamic Level-k Model in Sequential Games

Backward induction is a widely accepted principle for predicting behavior in sequential games. In the classic example of the “centipede game,” however, players frequently violate this principle. An alternative is a “dynamic level-k” model, where players choose a rule from a rule hierarchy. The rule hierarchy is iteratively defined such that the level-k rule is a best response to the level-k-1 rule, and the level-∞ rule corresponds to backward induction. Players choose rules based on their best guesses of others' rules and use historical plays to improve their guesses. The model captures two systematic violations of backward induction in centipede games, limited induction and repetition unraveling. Because the dynamic level-k model always converges to backward induction over repetition, the former can be considered to be a tracing procedure for the latter. We also examine the generalizability of the dynamic level-k model by applying it to explain systematic violations of backward induction in sequential bargaining games. We show that the same model is capable of capturing these violations in two separate bargaining experiments. This paper was accepted by Peter Wakker, decision analysis.

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

[2]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Stated Beliefs and Play in Normal-Form Games , 2007 .

[3]  T. W. Ross,et al.  Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games , 1996 .

[4]  Dan Levin,et al.  The Origin of the Winner’s Curse: A Laboratory Study , 2007 .

[5]  A. Rubinstein Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model , 1982 .

[6]  David W Harless,et al.  The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories , 1994 .

[7]  David Pearce Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection , 1984 .

[8]  D. Fudenberg,et al.  The Theory of Learning in Games , 1998 .

[9]  Hugo Sonnenschein,et al.  A Further Test of Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: Comment , 1988 .

[10]  Dale O. Stahl,et al.  Rule Learning in Symmetric Normal-Form Games: Theory and Evidence , 2000, Games Econ. Behav..

[11]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Frontiers of game theory , 1993 .

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

[13]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[14]  J. Kagel,et al.  On the Existence of Predatory Pricing: An Experimental Study of Reputation and Entry Deterrence in the Chain-Store Game , 1994 .

[15]  D. Stahl Boundedly rational rule learning in a guessing game , 1996 .

[16]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation , 1984 .

[17]  R. Aumann Backward induction and common knowledge of rationality , 1995 .

[18]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Experience‐weighted Attraction Learning in Normal Form Games , 1999 .

[19]  V. Crawford,et al.  Level-k Auctions: Can a Non-Equilibrium Model of Strategic Thinking Explain the Winner's Curse and Overbidding in Private-Value Auctions? , 2007 .

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

[21]  E. Fehr A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[22]  R. Selten The chain store paradox , 1978 .

[23]  David M. Kreps,et al.  Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma , 1982 .

[24]  W. Güth,et al.  Ultimatum bargaining behavior : a survey and comparison of experimental results , 1990 .

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

[26]  B. Bernheim Rationalizable Strategic Behavior , 1984 .

[27]  R. Nagel Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study , 1995 .

[28]  O. Volij,et al.  Field Centipedes , 2006 .

[29]  R. Rosenthal Games of perfect information, predatory pricing and the chain-store paradox , 1981 .

[30]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best-Response in Experimental P-Beauty Contests , 1998 .

[31]  V. Crawford,et al.  Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental "Hide-and-Seek" Games , 2007 .

[32]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

[33]  Nagel,et al.  Experimental Results on the Centipede Game in Normal Form: An Investigation on Learning. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[34]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Cognition and framing in sequential bargaining for gains and losses , 1993 .

[35]  Ken Binmore,et al.  A Backward Induction Experiment , 2002, J. Econ. Theory.

[36]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of constant-sum centipede games , 1996 .

[37]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Comparing Models of Strategic Thinking in Van Huyck, Battalio, and Beil’s Coordination Games , 2009 .

[38]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  Self-tuning experience weighted attraction learning in games , 2007, J. Econ. Theory.

[39]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of the centipede game , 1992 .

[40]  O. H. Brownlee,et al.  ACTIVITY ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION AND ALLOCATION , 1952 .

[41]  V. Crawford Lying for Strategic Advantage: Rational and Boundedly Rational Misrepresentation of Intentions , 2003 .

[42]  P. Reny Backward Induction, Normal Form Perfection and Explicable Equilibria , 1992 .