IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v21y2009i2p249-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Rationale of Rationality

Author

Listed:
  • Jeroen Weesie

    (Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, j.weesie@uu.nl)

  • Chris Snijders

    (Eindhoven University of Technology, PO Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, c.c.p.snijders@tue.nl)

  • Vincent Buskens

    (Faculty of Technology Management, Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3584 CS Utrecht, v.buskens@uu.nl)

Abstract

Our research starts from the assumption that actors use a single decision theory to guide them on how to behave in all possible one-shot two-person encounters. To address which decision theories perform well, we let 17 theories compete in a large number of randomly selected symmetric 2 × 2 games. It turns out that the decision theory that optimizes its own payoff under the assumption that the other actor behaves randomly wins by a small margin. Second, we study the `evolution of rationality.' In a quasi-biological setup where more successful strategies generate more offspring, the decision theory that always plays the behavior that belongs to the risk-dominant Nash equilibrium emerges as the long-term survivor from an initially mixed pool of decision theories. We also confront the decision theories with human experimental data. The decision theory that always aims for the highest possible payoff for itself performs best against humans.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeroen Weesie & Chris Snijders & Vincent Buskens, 2009. "The Rationale of Rationality," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(2), pages 249-277, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:249-277
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463109103901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463109103901
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463109103901?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Jenna Bednar & Scott Page, 2007. "Can Game(s) Theory Explain Culture?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 19(1), pages 65-97, February.
    3. Young, H Peyton, 1993. "The Evolution of Conventions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 61(1), pages 57-84, January.
    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. Kris De Jaegher, 2016. "Endogenous thresholds and assurance networks in collective action," Rationality and Society, , vol. 28(2), pages 202-252, May.

    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. Dal Bó, Pedro & Fréchette, Guillaume R. & Kim, Jeongbin, 2021. "The determinants of efficient behavior in coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 352-368.
    2. David Hagmann & Troy Tassier, 2014. "Endogenous Movement and Equilibrium Selection in Spatial Coordination Games," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, October.
    3. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    4. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Michael Kosfeld, 2002. "Stochastic strategy adjustment in coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 321-339.
    6. Sanjeev Goyal & Fernando Vega-Redondo, 2000. "Learning, Network Formation and Coordination," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0113, Econometric Society.
    7. Jun Honda, 2015. "Games with the Total Bandwagon Property," Department of Economics Working Papers wuwp197, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Department of Economics.
    8. T. Guse & B. Hehenkamp, 2006. "The strategic advantage of interdependent preferences in rent-seeking contests," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 323-352, December.
    9. , & , & ,, 2008. "Monotone methods for equilibrium selection under perfect foresight dynamics," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), June.
    10. van Damme, E.E.C., 1995. "Game theory : The next stage," Other publications TiSEM 7779b0f9-bef5-45c7-ae6b-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Norman, Thomas W.L., 2009. "Rapid evolution under inertia," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 865-879, July.
    12. Kazunori Araki & Hamish Low, 2000. "Noisy Convention Selection with Local Interaction," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(3), pages 312-340, February.
    13. Arnaud Z. Dragicevic, 2019. "Market Coordination Under Non-Equilibrium Dynamics," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 697-715, September.
    14. Péter Bayer & Ani Guerdjikova, 2020. "Optimism leads to optimality: Ambiguity in network formation," Working Papers hal-03005107, HAL.
    15. Shota Fujishima, 2015. "The emergence of cooperation through leadership," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(1), pages 17-36, February.
    16. DavidP. Myatt & Chris Wallace, 2009. "Evolution, Teamwork and Collective Action: Production Targets in the Private Provision of Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 61-90, January.
    17. Kosfeld, Michael, 2002. "Why shops close again: An evolutionary perspective on the deregulation of shopping hours," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 51-72, January.
    18. 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.
    19. Oyama, Daisuke & Tercieux, Olivier, 2009. "Iterated potential and robustness of equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(4), pages 1726-1769, July.
    20. Bryan McCannon, 2011. "Coordination between a sophisticated and fictitious player," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 263-273, April.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:249-277. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.