IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/rwe111/v4y2013i1p1-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Satisficing Players

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Guth

Abstract

Bounded rationality and, more specifically, satisficing in game playing assumes choosing strategies by anticipating their likely consequences. Unlike orthodox game theory, one does not require optimality and rational expectations but views satisficing as a reasoning process with several possible feedback loops. The various stages of such reasoning ask players to ? mentally represent the game, typically via simplifying (mental modeling), ? generate scenarios, i.e., point expectations concerning others¡¯ choices and chance events (scenario generation), ? form payoff aspirations for all scenarios (aspiration formation), ? try to satisfy them by successively testing choice alternatives (satisficing search). When repeating this process, players may revise their mental representation, adapt their scenario set and aspiration profile or drop the first, the two first, or all three of these stages before exploring further strategies. Such satisficing in game playing has been confirmed experimentally by directly observing scenario generation, aspiration formation, and search for satisficing alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Guth, 2013. "Satisficing Players," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:rwe111:v:4:y:2013:i:1:p:1-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/rwe/article/view/2544/1421
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.sciedu.ca/journal/index.php/rwe/article/view/2544
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rami Zwick & Amnon Rapoport & Alison King Chung Lo & A. V. Muthukrishnan, 2003. "Consumer Sequential Search: Not Enough or Too Much?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 503-519, October.
    2. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen, 1997. "A new justification of monopolistic competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 177-182, December.
    3. Young, H. Peyton, 2009. "Learning by trial and error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 626-643, March.
    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. Güth, Werner, 2010. "Satisficing and (un)bounded rationality--A formal definition and its experimental validity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 308-316, March.
    2. Tom Johnston & Michael Savery & Alex Scott & Bassel Tarbush, 2023. "Game Connectivity and Adaptive Dynamics," Papers 2309.10609, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    3. Jhunjhunwala, Tanushree, 2021. "Searching to avoid regret: An experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 298-319.
    4. Siegfried Berninghaus & Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Jianying Qiu, 2006. "Satisficing in sales competition: experimental evidence," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    5. H Peyton Young & Jason R. Marden and Lucy Y. Pao, 2011. "Achieving Pareto Optimality Through Distributed Learning," Economics Series Working Papers 557, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Behavioral heterogeneity in dynamic search situations: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1719-1738, September.
    7. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli, 2020. "The evolution of conventions under condition-dependent mistakes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(2), pages 497-521, March.
    8. J. Neil Bearden & Amnon Rapoport & Ryan O. Murphy, 2006. "Sequential Observation and Selection with Rank-Dependent Payoffs: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1437-1449, September.
    9. Dufwenberg, Martin & Güth, Werner, 1997. "Indirect evolution versus strategic delegation: A comparison of two approaches to explaining economic institutions," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,28, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    10. Jos van Ommeren & Giovanni Russo, 2004. "Sequential or Non-sequential Recruitment?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-109/3, Tinbergen Institute, revised 15 Sep 2008.
    11. M. Vittoria Levati, 2006. "Explaining Private Provision Of Public Goods By Conditional Cooperation: An Indirect Evolutionary Approach," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 68-92, February.
    12. Yakov Babichenko, 2010. "Completely Uncoupled Dynamics and Nash Equilibria," Discussion Paper Series dp529, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    13. Shuk Ying Ho & David Bodoff & Kar Yan Tam, 2011. "Timing of Adaptive Web Personalization and Its Effects on Online Consumer Behavior," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 660-679, September.
    14. Marcu, Emanuel & Noussair, Charles, 2018. "Sequential Search with a Price Freeze Option - Theory and Experimental Evidence," Other publications TiSEM dacf4815-c001-44c3-bda3-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    15. Werner Güth & Anthony ZIEGELMEYER & Loreto LLORENTE ERVITI, 2004. "Quantity Competition under Asymmetric Information without Common Priors: An Indirect Evolutionary Approach," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-32, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    16. Xiao Han & Yun Yu & Bin Jia & Zi‐You Gao & Rui Jiang & H. Michael Zhang, 2021. "Coordination Behavior in Mode Choice: Laboratory Study of Equilibrium Transformation and Selection," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(10), pages 3635-3656, October.
    17. Marden, Jason R., 2017. "Selecting efficient correlated equilibria through distributed learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 114-133.
    18. Pantelis P. Analytis & Amit Kothiyal & Konstantinos Katsikopoulos, 2014. "Multi-attribute utility models as cognitive search engines," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(5), pages 403-419, September.
    19. Jie Jennifer Zhang & Bing Jing, 2007. "The Impacts of Shopbots on Online Consumer Search," Working Papers 07-34, NET Institute, revised Sep 2007.
    20. Schunk, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2009. "The relationship between risk attitudes and heuristics in search tasks: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 347-360, August.

    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:jfr:rwe111:v:4:y:2013:i:1:p:1-13. 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: Gina Perry (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://rwe.sciedupress.com .

    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.