IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v149y2025icp96-111.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding dynamic interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Grabiszewski, Konrad
  • Horenstein, Alex

Abstract

Dealing with a problem consists of understanding and solving. While there is vast literature analyzing problem solving, this article focuses on understanding. The problems subjects deal with are finite dynamic games with complete and perfect information. Understanding involves comprehending the relationships between choices and their consequences. The same backward-induction problem is presented using two distinct representations: tree and non-tree. The crucial difference between them is that the relevant connections between choices and consequences are directly provided in a tree but must be identified in a non-tree. Our study comprises 27 pairs of tree/non-tree interactions with a varying depth. We measure and analyze understanding by looking at success in understanding and the effort it involves. Our subjects struggle with understanding, even more so than solving. Greater depth increases the cognitive effort of understanding and, simultaneously, lowers the success rate in understanding.

Suggested Citation

  • Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2025. "Understanding dynamic interactions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 96-111.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:149:y:2025:i:c:p:96-111
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2024.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825624001556
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2024.10.010?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Gibbons, 1997. "An Introduction to Applicable Game Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 127-149, Winter.
    2. Rydval, Ondrej & Ortmann, Andreas & Ostatnicky, Michal, 2009. "Three very simple games and what it takes to solve them," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 589-601, October.
    3. Hausman, Daniel M, 1989. "Economic Methodology in a Nutshell," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 115-127, Spring.
    4. Ariel Rubinstein, 2006. "Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(4), pages 865-883, July.
    5. Aaron Drummond & James D. Sauer & Lauren C. Hall & David Zendle & Malcolm R. Loudon, 2020. "Why loot boxes could be regulated as gambling," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(10), pages 986-988, October.
    6. McKelvey, Richard D & Palfrey, Thomas R, 1992. "An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 803-836, July.
    7. Larbi Alaoui & Antonio Penta, 2016. "Endogenous Depth of Reasoning," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(4), pages 1297-1333.
    8. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2016. "Cognitive Ability, Character Skills, and Learning to Play Equilibrium: A Level-k Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(6), pages 1619-1676.
    9. Benjamin Handel & Joshua Schwartzstein, 2018. "Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 155-178, Winter.
    10. R. Myerson, 2010. "Nash Equilibrium and the History of Economic Theory," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 6.
    11. Paolo Crosetto & Marco Mantovani, 2018. "Representation effects in the centipede game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, October.
    12. Andrew Caplin & Mark Dean & Daniel Martin, 2011. "Search and Satisficing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 2899-2922, December.
    13. Perea, Andrés, 2018. "Why forward induction leads to the backward induction outcome: A new proof for Battigalli's theorem," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 120-138.
    14. Agranov, Marina & Potamites, Elizabeth & Schotter, Andrew & Tergiman, Chloe, 2012. "Beliefs and endogenous cognitive levels: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 449-463.
    15. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2017. "Stochastic Choice and Preferences for Randomization," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 40-68.
    16. Dufwenberg, Martin & Sundaram, Ramya & Butler, David J., 2010. "Epiphany in the Game of 21," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 132-143, August.
    17. Dietmar Fehr & Steffen Huck, 2016. "Who knows it is a game? On strategic awareness and cognitive ability," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 713-726, December.
    18. Erkal, Nisvan & Gangadharan, Lata & Koh, Boon Han, 2018. "Monetary and non-monetary incentives in real-effort tournaments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 528-545.
    19. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2022. "Measuring tree complexity with response times," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    20. Eileen Chou & Margaret McConnell & Rosemarie Nagel & Charles Plott, 2009. "The control of game form recognition in experiments: understanding dominant strategy failures in a simple two person “guessing” game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(2), pages 159-179, June.
    21. Drew Fudenberg & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Dynamic Logit With Choice Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 651-691, March.
    22. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2019. "Deliberately Stochastic," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(7), pages 2425-2445, July.
      • Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva & Gil Riella, 2012. "Deliberately Stochastic," PIER Working Paper Archive 17-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 25 May 2017.
    23. Stoye, Jörg, 2015. "Choice theory when agents can randomize," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 131-151.
    24. Ding, Shuze & Lugovskyy, Volodymyr & Puzzello, Daniela & Tucker, Steven & Williams, Arlington, 2018. "Cash versus extra-credit incentives in experimental asset markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 19-27.
    25. Schotter Andrew & Weigelt Keith & Wilson Charles, 1994. "A Laboratory Investigation of Multiperson Rationality and Presentation Effects," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 445-468, May.
    26. Battigalli, Pierpaolo, 1997. "On Rationalizability in Extensive Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 40-61, May.
    27. Bull, Charles & Courty, Pascal & Doyon, Maurice & Rondeau, Daniel, 2019. "Failure of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism in inexperienced subjects: New tests of the game form misconception hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 235-253.
    28. Ariel Rubinstein, 2016. "A Typology of Players: Between Instinctive and Contemplative," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(2), pages 859-890.
    29. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally E. Sadoff, 2011. "Checkmate: Exploring Backward Induction among Chess Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 975-990, April.
    30. Gneezy, Uri & Rustichini, Aldo & Vostroknutov, Alexander, 2010. "Experience and insight in the Race game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 144-155, August.
    31. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    32. repec:mpr:mprres:7497 is not listed on IDEAS
    33. Johnson, Eric J. & Camerer, Colin & Sen, Sankar & Rymon, Talia, 2002. "Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 16-47, May.
    34. Frazer, William J, Jr & Boland, Lawrence A, 1983. "An Essay on the Foundations of Friedman's Methodology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 129-144, March.
    35. James C. Cox & Duncan James, 2012. "Clocks and Trees: Isomorphic Dutch Auctions and Centipede Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(2), pages 883-903, March.
    36. Timothy N. Cason & Charles R. Plott, 2014. "Misconceptions and Game Form Recognition: Challenges to Theories of Revealed Preference and Framing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 122(6), pages 1235-1270.
    37. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    38. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    39. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    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. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2022. "Measuring tree complexity with response times," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Despoina Alempaki & Andrew M. Colman & Felix Kölle & Graham Loomes & Briony D. Pulford, 2022. "Investigating the failure to best respond in experimental games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 656-679, April.
    4. Marco Mantovani, 2015. "Limited backward induction: foresight and behavior in sequential games," Working Papers 289, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2015.
    5. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    6. Cardella, Eric, 2012. "Learning to make better strategic decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 382-392.
    7. Rampal, Jeevant, 2022. "Limited Foresight Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 166-188.
    8. Bayer, Ralph C. & Renou, Ludovic, 2016. "Logical omniscience at the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 41-49.
    9. Ciril Bosch-Rosa & Thomas Meissner, 2020. "The one player guessing game: a diagnosis on the relationship between equilibrium play, beliefs, and best responses," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1129-1147, December.
    10. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2014. "Backward Induction in the Wild: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," MPRA Paper 58766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Helbach, Christoph, 2015. "Exploring the capability to reason backwards: An experimental study with children, adolescents, and young adults," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 286-302.
    12. Andreas Tutić & Sascha Grehl, 2017. "A Note on Disbelief in Others regarding Backward Induction," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-7, August.
    13. Dufwenberg, Martin & Van Essen, Matt, 2018. "King of the Hill: Giving backward induction its best shot," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 125-138.
    14. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2020. "Property is Dummy Proof: An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Li, Ying Xue & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2020. "Strategic reasoning in persuasion games: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 329-367.
    16. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    17. Zafer Akin, 2023. "Asymmetric guessing games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 637-676, May.
    18. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    19. Paolo Crosetto & Marco Mantovani, 2018. "Representation effects in the centipede game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, October.
    20. Ramzi Mabsout, 2018. "The Backward Induction Controversy as a Metaphorical Problem," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 7(1), pages 24-49, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Understanding; Tree construction; Solving; Backward induction; Finite dynamic games; Mobile experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C99 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Other
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:gamebe:v:149:y:2025:i:c:p:96-111. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

    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.