IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v50y2006i4p607-613.html

The Common Priors Assumption

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Fey

    (Department of Political Science, University of Rochester)

  • Kristopher W. Ramsay

    (Department of Politics, Princeton University)

Abstract

In a recent article in this journal, Smith and Stam (2004) call into question the usefulness and applicability of what is know as the common priors assumption in the modeling of countries' strategic behavior in international relations. While the authors of this comment acknowledge that it is possible to incorporate noncommon priors in models of politics in a mathematically consistent fashion, they do not agree with the article's claims regarding the limitations of the common priors approach, which motivate Smith and Stam's rejection of it.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Fey & Kristopher W. Ramsay, 2006. "The Common Priors Assumption," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 607-613, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:50:y:2006:i:4:p:607-613
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002706289182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002706289182
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002706289182?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. Morris, Stephen, 1995. "The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 227-253, October.
    2. Geanakoplos, John D. & Polemarchakis, Heraklis M., 1982. "We can't disagree forever," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 192-200, October.
    3. Alastair Smith & Allan C. Stam, 2004. "Bargaining and the Nature of War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(6), pages 783-813, December.
    4. John Geanakoplos, 1992. "Common Knowledge," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 53-82, Fall.
    5. Robert J. Aumann, 1998. "Common Priors: A Reply to Gul," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(4), pages 929-938, July.
    6. Barton L. Lipman, 2003. "Finite Order Implications of Common Priors," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1255-1267, July.
    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. Alastair Smith & Allan C. Stam, 2006. "Divergent Beliefs in “Bargaining and the Nature of Warâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 614-618, August.
    2. Pivato, Marcus, 2008. "The Discursive Dilemma and Probabilistic Judgement Aggregation," MPRA Paper 8412, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Khrennikov, Andrei, 2015. "Quantum version of Aumann’s approach to common knowledge: Sufficient conditions of impossibility to agree on disagree," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 89-104.
    4. Rodrigues-Neto, José Alvaro, 2009. "From posteriors to priors via cycles," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 876-883, March.
    5. Rodrigues-Neto, José Alvaro, 2012. "The cycles approach," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 207-211.
    6. Klaus Nehring, 2003. "Common Priors For Like-Minded Agents," Economics Working Papers 0035, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    7. John Geanakoplos, 1993. "Common Knowledge," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1062, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    8. Julia Mortera & A. Philip Dawid, 2017. "A Note on Prediction Markets," Departmental Working Papers of Economics - University 'Roma Tre' 0215, Department of Economics - University Roma Tre.
    9. Robin P. Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2008. "Common reasoning in games," Discussion Papers 2008-01, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    10. Timothy Mathews & Aniruddha Bagchi, 2019. "Conflict without an Apparent Cause," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, October.
    11. Qin, Cheng-Zhong & Yang, Chun-Lei, 2009. "An Explicit Approach to Modeling Finite-Order Type Spaces and Applications," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt8hq7j89k, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    12. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    13. Hellman, Ziv, 2007. "Common Knowledge and Disparate Priors: When it is O.K. to Agree to Disagree," MPRA Paper 3404, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Felipe Zurita, 2001. "Speculation in Financial Markets: A Survey," Documentos de Trabajo 197, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    15. Kim-Sau Chung & J.C. Ely, 2007. "Foundations of Dominant-Strategy Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 447-476.
    16. Friedenberg, Amanda, 2010. "When do type structures contain all hierarchies of beliefs?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 108-129, January.
    17. Ian Ayres & Colin Rowat & Nasser Zakariya, 2004. "Optimal two stage committee voting rules," Game Theory and Information 0412006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Lipman, Barton L., 2010. "Finite order implications of common priors in infinite models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 56-70, January.
    19. Zimper, Alexander, 2009. "Half empty, half full and why we can agree to disagree forever," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 283-299, August.
    20. Ian Ayres & Colin Rowat & Nasser Zakariya, 2004. "Optimal two stage committee voting rules," Game Theory and Information 0412006, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:jocore:v:50:y:2006:i:4:p:607-613. 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: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.