IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Equilibrium Selection, Similarity Judgments and the“Nothing to Gain/Nothing to Lose”Effect

  • Jonathan W. Leland

Rubinstein (1988, 2003) and Leland (1994, 1998, 2001, 2002) have shown that choices based on similarity judgments will account for the vast majority of observed violations of expected and discounted utility. In this paper, I show that such judgments also explain which equilibria will be selected in single-shot games with multiple equilibria, predict circumstances in which non-equilibria outcomes may predominate in such games, and predict circumstances in which specific pure strategy outcomes will predominate in games with no pure strategy equilibria.

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4321307000000000378.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by David K. Levine in its series Levine's Working Paper Archive with number 321307000000000378.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 16 Sep 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:321307000000000378
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.dklevine.com/

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Jonathan W. Leland, 1998. "Similarity Judgments in Choice Under Uncertainty: A Reinterpretation of the Predictions of Regret Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 659-672, May.
  2. Goeree, Jacob & Holt, Charles & Palfrey, Thomas, 2005. "Regular Quantal Response Equilibrium," Working Papers 1219, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  3. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2004. "A model of noisy introspection," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 365-382, February.
  4. Broseta, Bruno & Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Crawford, Vincent P., 2000. "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt0fp8278k, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
  5. John Leland, 2010. "Generalized Similarity Judgments: An Alternative Explanation for Choice Anomalies," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7644, David K. Levine.
  6. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
  7. Aizpurua, J M, et al, 1993. "Similarity and Preferences in the Space of Simple Lotteries," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 289-97, June.
  8. T. Randolph Beard & Richard O. Beil, 1994. "Do People Rely on the Self-Interested Maximization of Others? An Experimental Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 252-262, February.
  9. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1988. "Similarity and decision-making under risk (is there a utility theory resolution to the Allais paradox?)," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 145-153, October.
  10. Jacob K Goeree & Charles A Holt, 2004. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000900, David K. Levine.
  11. Jonathan W. Leland, 2002. "Similarity Judgments and Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 40(4), pages 574-581, October.
  12. Keser, Claudia & Vogt, Bodo, 2000. "Why do experimental subjects choose an equilibrium which is neither risk nor payoff dominant," Papers 00-40, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
  13. Ariel Rubinstein, 2003. ""Economics and Psychology"? The Case of Hyperbolic Discounting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1207-1216, November.
  14. Ondrej Rydval & Andreas Ortmann, 2004. "Loss avoidance as selection principle: evidence from simple stag-hunt games," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp245, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
  15. Keser, Claudia & Vogt, Bodo, 0000. "Why do experimental subjects choose an equilibrium which is neither risk nor payoff dominant," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 00-40, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
  16. Buschena, David & Zilberman, David, 1995. "Performance of the Similarity Hypothesis Relative to Existing Models of Risky Choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 233-62, December.
  17. Colin F. Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin-Kuan Chong, 2004. "A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 861-898.
  18. Haruvy, Ernan & Stahl, Dale O., 2004. "Deductive versus inductive equilibrium selection: experimental results," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 319-331, March.
  19. Markman, Arthur B. & Medin, Douglas L., 1995. "Similarity and Alignment in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 117-130, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:321307000000000378. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David K. Levine)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.