IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.18069.html

Revisiting the Intra-Team Communication Method to Elicit Level-k Reasoning in Beauty Contests and 11-20 Games

Author

Listed:
  • Zitian Wang
  • Istiak Ahmed
  • Patarasate Unjitwattana
  • Emily Yunxi Xie
  • Meng-Jhang Fong
  • Po-Hsuan Lin

Abstract

How level-0 players behave and how they are perceived by higher-level players are central questions in the literature on level-k models of boundedly rational strategic reasoning. To study these twin questions, we apply the intra-team communication method developed by Burchardi and Penczynski (2014) to identify level-0 actions and beliefs in the canonical beauty contest game and in a variant of the 11-20 game of Goeree et al. (2018), in which behavior appears inconsistent with the standard level-k model. In the beauty contest game, we replicate Burchardi and Penczynski (2014)'s finding that elicited level-0 beliefs align with observed level-0 actions. In the variant of the 11-20 game, however, elicited level-0 beliefs and observed level-0 actions diverge, and both depart from the standard level-0 assumption, suggesting a complementary explanation for the behavioral pattern documented by Goeree et al. (2018).

Suggested Citation

  • Zitian Wang & Istiak Ahmed & Patarasate Unjitwattana & Emily Yunxi Xie & Meng-Jhang Fong & Po-Hsuan Lin, 2026. "Revisiting the Intra-Team Communication Method to Elicit Level-k Reasoning in Beauty Contests and 11-20 Games," Papers 2608.18069, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.18069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.18069
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stahl, Dale II & Wilson, Paul W., 1994. "Experimental evidence on players' models of other players," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 309-327, December.
    2. Hu, Shiang-Hung & Lin, Po-Hsuan & Palfrey, Thomas R. & Wang, Joseph Tao-yi & Wang, Yu-Hsiang, 2026. "Strategy method effects in centipede games: An optimal design approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    3. Penczynski, Stefan P., 2016. "Persuasion: An experimental study of team decision making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 244-261.
    4. Georganas, Sotiris & Healy, Paul J. & Weber, Roberto A., 2015. "On the persistence of strategic sophistication," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 159(PA), pages 369-400.
    5. Terri Kneeland, 2015. "Identifying Higher‐Order Rationality," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(5), pages 2065-2079, September.
    6. Lin, Po-Hsuan & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2024. "Cognitive hierarchies for games in extensive form," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    7. Daniel L. Chen & Martin Schonger & Chris Wickens, 2016. "oTree - An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Post-Print hal-04315125, HAL.
    8. Rapoport, Amnon & Amaldoss, Wilfred, 2000. "Mixed strategies and iterative elimination of strongly dominated strategies: an experimental investigation of states of knowledge," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 483-521, August.
    9. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    10. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    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. 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.
    2. Itzhak Rasooly, 2021. "Going... going... wrong: a test of the level-k (and cognitive hierarchy) models of bidding behaviour," Papers 2111.05686, arXiv.org.
    3. Pin, Paolo & Rotesi, Tiziano, 2023. "App-based experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. King King Li & Kang Rong, 2024. "A two-step guessing game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 89-108, August.
    5. Mitra, Arnab & Shahriar, Quazi, 2025. "Voting under contradictory news," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    6. Ye Jin, 2021. "Does level-k behavior imply level-k thinking?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 330-353, March.
    7. Wei James Chen & Meng-Jhang Fong & Po-Hsuan Lin, 2023. "Measuring Higher-Order Rationality with Belief Control," Papers 2309.07427, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    8. Hoelzemann, Johannes & Webb, Ryan & Xie, Erhao, 2026. "Non-parametric identification and testing of quantal response equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 637-659.
    9. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    10. Quement, Mark T. Le & Marcin, Isabel, 2020. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 449-468.
    11. Kyle Hyndman & Antoine Terracol & Jonathan Vaksmann, 2022. "Beliefs and (in)stability in normal-form games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1146-1172, September.
    12. Francesco Cerigioni & Fabrizio Germano & Pedro Rey Biel & Peio Zuazo-Garin, 2019. "Higher Orders of Rationality and the Structure of Games," Working Papers 1120, Barcelona School of Economics.
    13. Burkhard C. Schipper & Hang Zhou, 2026. "Level-k thinking in the extensive form," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 149-189, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Szech, Nora, 2023. "Designing contests between heterogeneous contestants: An experimental study of tie-breaks and bid-caps in all-pay auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    16. Sauermann, Jan & Schwaninger, Manuel & Kittel, Bernhard, 2022. "Making and breaking coalitions: Strategic sophistication and prosociality in majority decisions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    17. Gavin Kader & Dongwoo Lee, 2024. "The Emergence of Strategic Reasoning of Large Language Models," Papers 2412.13013, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2025.
    18. Wright, James R. & Leyton-Brown, Kevin, 2017. "Predicting human behavior in unrepeated, simultaneous-move games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 16-37.
    19. Healy, Paul J. & Park, Hyoeun, 2023. "Model selection accuracy in behavioral game theory: A simulation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    20. Kota Murayama, 2020. "Robust predictions under finite depth of reasoning," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 59-84, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2608.18069. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.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.