IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tiu/tiutis/7dc795b0-6250-4c14-828a-d05587d62a81.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Refinements of Rationalizability for Normal-Form Games

Author

Listed:
  • Herings, P.J.J.

    (Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management)

  • Vannetelbosch, V.

Abstract

In normal-form games, rationalizability (Bernheim [3], Pearce [11]) on its own fails to exclude some very implausible strategy choices. Three main refinements of ra- tionalizability have been proposed in the literature: cautious, perfect, and proper rationalizability. Nevertheless, some of these refinements also fail to eliminate un- reasonable outcomes and suffer from several drawbacks. Therefore, we introduce the trembling-hand rationalizability concept, where the players’ actions have to be best responses also against perturbed conjectures. We also propose another refinement: weakly perfect rationalizability, where players’ actions that are not best responses are only played with a very small probability. We show the relationship between perfect rationalizability and weakly perfect ratio- nalizability as well as the relationship between proper rationalizability and weakly perfect rationalizability : weakly perfect rationalizability is a weaker refinement than both perfect and proper rationalizability. Moreover, in two-player games it holds that weakly perfect rationalizability is a weaker refinement than trembling-hand rational- izability. The other relationships between the various refinements are illustrated by means of examples. For the relationship between any other two refinements we give examples showing that the remaining set of strategies corresponding to the first re- finement can be either smaller or larger than the one corresponding to the second refinement.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Herings, P.J.J. & Vannetelbosch, V., 1997. "Refinements of Rationalizability for Normal-Form Games," Other publications TiSEM 7dc795b0-6250-4c14-828a-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:tiu:tiutis:7dc795b0-6250-4c14-828a-d05587d62a81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/526490/3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asheim, G.B. & Dufwenberg, M., 1996. "Admissibility and Common Knowledge," Discussion Paper 1996-16, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384.
    3. Ben-Porath, Elchanan & Dekel, Eddie, 1992. "Signaling future actions and the potential for sacrifice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 36-51.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. P. Jean-Jacques Herings & Ana Mauleon & Vincent J. Vannetelbosch, 2004. "Fuzzy play, matching devices and coordination failures," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 32(4), pages 519-531, August.
    2. Kool, C.J.M. & Thornton, D., 2000. "The expectations theory and the founding of the fed: another look at the evidence," Research Memorandum 009, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    3. Vincent J. Vannetelbosch & P. Jean-Jacques Herings, 2000. "The equivalence of the Dekel-Fudenberg iterative procedure and weakly perfect rationalizability," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 15(3), pages 677-687.
    4. Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent J., 2004. "Rationalizability for social environments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 135-156, October.
    5. Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2004. "Bargaining with endogenous deadlines," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 321-335, July.
    6. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Dynamic unawareness and rationalizable behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 50-68.
    7. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Dynamic unawareness and rationalizable behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 50-68.
    8. Gilles Grandjean & Ana Mauleon & Vincent Vannetelbosch, 2017. "Strongly rational sets for normal-form games," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 5(1), pages 35-46, April.
    9. Asheim,G.B., 1999. "Proper consistency," Memorandum 31/1999, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    10. Ana, MAULEON & Vincent, VANNETELBOSCH, 2003. "Farsightedness and Cautiousness in Coalition Formation," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2003003, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    11. A. Mauleon & V. Vannetelbosch, 2000. "Coalitional Negotiation with Monitoring," THEMA Working Papers 2000-35, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    12. Vincent Vannetelbosch, 1999. "Alternating-Offer Bargaining and Common Knowledge of Rationality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 111-138, October.
    13. MAULEON, Ana & VANNETELBOSCH, Vincent, 1999. "Coalitional negotiation," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1999020, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Herings, P.J.J. & Mauleon, A. & Vannetelbosch, V., 2000. "Social Rationalizability," Discussion Paper 2000-81, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Goossens, J.H.M. & van Hoesel, C.P.M. & Kroon, L.G., 2002. "On solving multi-type line planning problems," Research Memorandum 009, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    16. Mario Gilli, 2002. "Iterated Admissibility as Solution Concept in Game Theory," Working Papers 47, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2002.

    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. Blume, Andreas, 1998. "Communication, Risk, and Efficiency in Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 171-202, February.
    2. John Hillas & Elon Kohlberg, 1996. "Foundations of Strategic Equilibrium," Game Theory and Information 9606002, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Sep 1996.
    3. Gintis, Herbert, 2009. "The local best response criterion: An epistemic approach to equilibrium refinement," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 89-97, August.
    4. Filipe Costa Souza & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2014. "Mixed Equilibrium, Collaborative Dominance and Burning Money: An Experimental Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 377-400, May.
    5. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    6. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2005. "Burning money and (pseudo) first-mover advantages: an experimental study on forward induction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 109-127, April.
    7. Giordani, Paolo E. & Ruta, Michele, 2013. "Coordination failures in immigration policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 55-67.
    8. repec:pit:wpaper:438 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Andreas Blume & Peter H. Kriss & Roberto A. Weber, 2017. "Pre-play communication with forgone costly messages: experimental evidence on forward induction," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(2), pages 368-395, June.
    10. Souza, Filipe & Rêgo, Leandro, 2012. "Mixed Equilibrium: When Burning Money is Rational," MPRA Paper 43410, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    12. van Damme, Eric & Hurkens, Sjaak, 1999. "Endogenous Stackelberg Leadership," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 105-129, July.
    13. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    14. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2003. "Elicited bid functions in (a)symmetric first-price auctions," Working Papers 85, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
    15. Gabriele Camera & Cary Deck & David Porter, 2020. "Do economic inequalities affect long-run cooperation and prosperity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 53-83, March.
    16. Simai He & Jay Sethuraman & Xuan Wang & Jiawei Zhang, 2017. "A NonCooperative Approach to Cost Allocation in Joint Replenishment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1562-1573, December.
    17. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Michael Kosfeld, 2002. "Stochastic strategy adjustment in coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 321-339.
    19. Sanjeev Goyal & Fernando Vega-Redondo, 2000. "Learning, Network Formation and Coordination," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0113, Econometric Society.
    20. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    21. Ennis, Huberto M. & Keister, Todd, 2005. "Government policy and the probability of coordination failures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 939-973, May.

    More about this item

    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:tiu:tiutis:7dc795b0-6250-4c14-828a-d05587d62a81. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/about/schools/economics-and-management/ .

    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: Richard Broekman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/about/schools/economics-and-management/ .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.