IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/the/publsh/6814.html

More reasoning, fewer outcomes: a monotonicity result for reasoning in dynamic games

Author

Listed:
  • Perea, Andrés

    (Maastricht University, Department of Quantitative Economics)

Abstract

A focus function in a dynamic game describes, for every player and each of his information sets, the collection of opponents' information sets he reasons about. Every focus function induces a rationalizability procedure in which a player believes, whenever possible, that his opponents choose rationally at those information sets he reasons about. Under certain conditions, we show that if the players start reasoning about more information sets, then the set of outcomes induced by the associated rationalizability procedure becomes smaller or stays the same. This result does not hold on the level of strategies, unless the players only reason about present and future information sets. The monotonicity result enables us to derive existing theorems, such as the relation in terms of outcomes between forward and backward induction reasoning, but also paves the way for new results.

Suggested Citation

  • Perea, Andrés, 0. "More reasoning, fewer outcomes: a monotonicity result for reasoning in dynamic games," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:the:publsh:6814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econtheory.org/ojs/index.php/te/article/viewForthcomingFile/6814/46100/1
    File Function: Working paper version. Paper will be copyedited and typeset before publication.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:the:publsh:6814. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Editor Theoretical Economics The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Editor Theoretical Economics to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://econtheory.org .

    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.