IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v81y2026i1d10.1007_s00199-024-01608-2.html

Correlated equilibria and forecasts based on Naïve play in Hawk–Dove games

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy N. Cason

    (Purdue University, Department of Economics)

  • Tridib Sharma

    (Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) - Centro de Investigación Económica (CIE))

  • Radovan Vadovič

    (Carleton University, Department of Economics)

Abstract

In most games, for equilibrium to result, players need to forecast the equilibrium and choose consistent strategies. We elicit forecasts of outcomes in a series of Hawk–Dove (aka chicken) games played by other subjects (players). We ask whether these forecasts are consistent with any correlated equilibrium of a class of the games that allow for the possibility of types with pro-social preferences. Surprisingly, even though players are anonymous and randomly matched, forecasters believe that the players’ actions are correlated. However, forecasts are not consistent with any correlated equilibrium. Beliefs in non-random (assortative) matching are consistent with the correlated forecasts.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy N. Cason & Tridib Sharma & Radovan Vadovič, 2026. "Correlated equilibria and forecasts based on Naïve play in Hawk–Dove games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 225-251, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:81:y:2026:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01608-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-024-01608-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-024-01608-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-024-01608-2?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roth, Benjamin & Voskort, Andrea, 2014. "Stereotypes and false consensus: How financial professionals predict risk preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 553-565.
    2. Bergstrom, Theodore C & Stark, Oded, 1993. "How Altruism Can Prevail in an Evolutionary Environment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 149-155, May.
    3. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    4. Alger, Ingela & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2023. "Evolution and Kantian morality: a correction and addendum," TSE Working Papers 23-1406, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    5. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    6. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2013. "The Binarized Scoring Rule," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 984-1001.
    7. John Duffy & Ernest K. Lai & Wooyoung Lim, 2017. "Coordination via correlation: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 64(2), pages 265-304, August.
    8. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    9. Moreno, Diego & Wooders, John, 1998. "An Experimental Study of Communication and Coordination in Noncooperative Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 47-76, July.
    10. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2003. "The Algebra of Assortative Encounters and the Evolution of Cooperation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 211-228.
    11. Timothy Cason & Tridib Sharma, 2007. "Recommended play and correlated equilibria: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 11-27, October.
    12. Bjerre-Nielsen, Andreas, 2020. "Assortative matching with network spillovers," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Jeffrey V. Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2015. "Trust, Values, And False Consensus," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 889-915, August.
    14. Ho, Teck-Hua & Camerer, Colin & Weigelt, Keith, 1998. "Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best Response in Experimental "p-Beauty Contests."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 947-969, September.
    15. Alger, Ingela & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2016. "Evolution and Kantian morality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 56-67.
    16. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4392 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2000. "The False Consensus Effect Disappears if Representative Information and Monetary Incentives Are Given," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(3), pages 241-260, December.
    18. Marimon Ramon & Spear Stephen E. & Sunder Shyam, 1993. "Expectationally Driven Market Volatility: An Experimental Study," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 74-103, October.
    19. Anbarcı, Nejat & Feltovich, Nick & Gürdal, Mehmet Y., 2018. "Payoff inequity reduces the effectiveness of correlated-equilibrium recommendations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 172-190.
    20. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10840 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Friedman, Daniel & Rabanal, Jean Paul & Rud, Olga A. & Zhao, Shuchen, 2022. "On the empirical relevance of correlated equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    22. Giovanna Devetag & Andreas Ortmann, 2007. "When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 331-344, September.
    23. Foster, Dean P. & Vohra, Rakesh V., 1997. "Calibrated Learning and Correlated Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 21(1-2), pages 40-55, October.
    24. Marina Agranov & Pietro Ortoleva, 2022. "Revealed Preferences for Randomization: An Overview," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 112, pages 426-430, May.
    25. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    26. Guillen, Pablo & Hing, Alexander, 2014. "Lying through their teeth: Third party advice and truth telling in a strategy proof mechanism," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 178-185.
    27. Cason, Timothy N. & Sharma, Tridib & Vadovič, Radovan, 2020. "Correlated beliefs: Predicting outcomes in 2 × 2 games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 256-276.
    28. Benjamin Enke & Thomas Graeber, 2023. "Cognitive Uncertainty," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(4), pages 2021-2067.
    29. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    30. Linda Babcock & Maria P. Recalde & Lise Vesterlund, 2017. "Gender Differences in the Allocation of Low-Promotability Tasks: The Role of Backlash," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 131-135, May.
    31. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2013. "Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2269-2302, November.
    32. Marcel Fafchamps & Flore Gubert, 2007. "Risk Sharing and Network Formation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(2), pages 75-79, May.
    33. John Duffy & Nick Feltovich, 2010. "Correlated Equilibria, Good And Bad: An Experimental Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 51(3), pages 701-721, August.
    34. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    35. Jeffrey V. Butler & Paola Giuliano & Luigi Guiso, 2015. "Trust, Values, And False Consensus," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56(3), pages 889-915, August.
    36. Fafchamps, Marcel & Gubert, Flore, 2007. "The formation of risk sharing networks," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 326-350, July.
    37. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    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. Cason, Timothy N. & Sharma, Tridib & Vadovič, Radovan, 2020. "Correlated beliefs: Predicting outcomes in 2 × 2 games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 256-276.
    2. Timothy N. Cason & Tridib Sharma & Radovan Vadovic, 2019. "Corelated beliefs: Predicting outcomes in 2X2 games," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1321, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
    3. Konstantinos Georgalos & Indrajit Ray & Sonali SenGupta, 2020. "Nash versus coarse correlation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 1178-1204, December.
    4. Georgalos, Konstantinos & Ray, Indrajit & Gupta, Sonali Sen, 2019. "Nash vs. Coarse Correlation," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2019/3, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    5. Forges, Françoise & Ray, Indrajit, 2024. "“Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies”: Back to the roots," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Friedman, Daniel & Rabanal, Jean Paul & Rud, Olga A. & Zhao, Shuchen, 2022. "On the empirical relevance of correlated equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    7. Verena Kurz & Andreas Orland & Kinga Posadzy, 2018. "Fairness versus efficiency: how procedural fairness concerns affect coordination," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(3), pages 601-626, September.
    8. Antonio Cabrales & Michalis Drouvelis & Zeynep Gurguy & Indrajit Ray, 2017. "Transparency is Overrated: Communicating in a Coordination Game with Private Information," CESifo Working Paper Series 6781, CESifo.
    9. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    10. Alger, Ingela, 2022. "Evolutionarily stable preferences," TSE Working Papers 22-1355, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Dec 2022.
    11. Tóbiás, Áron, 2023. "Rational Altruism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 50-80.
    12. Konstantinos Georgalos & Sonali Sen Gupta & Indrajit Ray, 2017. "Coarse correlation and coordination in a game," Working Papers 151235570, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    13. 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.
    14. Cabrales, Antonio & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gurguc, Zeynep & Ray, Indrajit, 2018. "Do we need to listen to all stakeholders?: communicating in a coordination game with private information," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2018/23, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    15. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    16. Ozdogan, Ayca & Saglam, Ismail, 2021. "Correlated equilibrium under costly disobedience," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 98-104.
    17. Karakostas, Alexandros & Kocher, Martin G. & Matzat, Dominik & Rau, Holger A. & Riewe, Gerhard, 2023. "The team allocator game: Allocation power in public goods games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 73-87.
    18. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Siebert, Jan & Yang, Guanzhong, 2021. "Coordination problems triggered by sunspots in the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Gueye, Mamadou & Quérou, Nicolas & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2020. "Social preferences and coordination: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 26-54.

    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:spr:joecth:v:81:y:2026:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-024-01608-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.