IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/i4rdps/170.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comment on the "Strategic Complexity and the Value of Thinking by D. Gill and V. Prowse (2023)"

Author

Listed:
  • Fallucchi, Francesco
  • Marietta Leina, Andrea
  • Silva, Rui
  • Turocy, Theodore L.

Abstract

Gill and Prowse (2023) study response times using a repeated p-beauty contest (p = 0.7). Looking at between-subject variation in response times, they found that subjects who think for longer, on average, win more rounds and choose lower numbers. When comparing average response times and level-k behavior, they observed that higher k types think for longer. In general, we are able to reproduce their findings, despite a minor coding error and some missing information. We test the robustness of their results by comparing average and median response times and choices, separating the sample into quick and slow respondents, including additional controls, and different estimation parameters. We do not find differences between choices between slow and quick respondents, somewhat contradicting their conclusions. Moreover, most subjects played faster as the game was repeated. The remaining results are robust to the inclusion of cohort effects and different parameter specifications in their regressions.

Suggested Citation

  • Fallucchi, Francesco & Marietta Leina, Andrea & Silva, Rui & Turocy, Theodore L., 2024. "A Comment on the "Strategic Complexity and the Value of Thinking by D. Gill and V. Prowse (2023)"," I4R Discussion Paper Series 170, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/303908/1/I4R-DP170.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2016. "Cognitive Ability, Character Skills, and Learning to Play Equilibrium: A Level-k Analysis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(6), pages 1619-1676.
    2. David Gill & Victoria Prowse, 2023. "Strategic Complexity and the Value of Thinking," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 761-786.
    3. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis Miller, 2017. "Strategic risk and response time across games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(2), pages 511-523, May.
    4. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    5. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Debrah Meloso & Luis M. Miller, 2008. "Instinctive Response in the Ultimatum Game," ThE Papers 08/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    6. Arad, Ayala & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2012. "Multi-dimensional iterative reasoning in action: The case of the Colonel Blotto game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 571-585.
    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. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:540-551 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2020. "Effort is not a monotonic function of skills: Results from a global mobile experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 634-652.
    3. Rubinstein, Ariel, 2012. "Response Time and Decision Making: A “Free” Experimental Study," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275782, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    5. Strittmatter, Anthony & Sunde, Uwe & Zegners, Dainis, 2022. "Speed, Quality, and the Optimal Timing of Complex Decisions: Field Evidence," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 317, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    6. Hubert Janos Kiss & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Alfonso Rosa-Garcia, 2019. "Does response time predict withdrawal decisions? Lessons from a bank-run experiment," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 12(3), pages 200-222, November.
    7. Castagnetti, Alessandro & Proto, Eugenio & Sofianos, Andis, 2023. "Anger impairs strategic behavior: A Beauty-Contest based analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 128-141.
    8. Ariel Rubenstein, 2013. "Response time and decision making: An experimental study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 540-551, September.
    9. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    10. Alaoui, Larbi & Janezic, Katharina A. & Penta, Antonio, 2020. "Reasoning about others' reasoning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    11. Nagel, Rosemarie & Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn, 2017. "Inspired and inspiring: Hervé Moulin and the discovery of the beauty contest game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 191-207.
    12. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Johannes Buckenmaier, 2021. "Cognitive sophistication and deliberation times," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 558-592, June.
    13. Sean Duffy & Tyson Hartwig & John Smith, 2014. "Costly and discrete communication: an experimental investigation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 395-417, March.
    14. Grabiszewski, Konrad & Horenstein, Alex, 2022. "Measuring tree complexity with response times," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    15. Hannes Lang & Gregory DeAngelo & Michelle Bongard, 2018. "Theory of Mind and General Intelligence in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Duffy, Sean & Smith, John, 2014. "Cognitive load in the multi-player prisoner's dilemma game: Are there brains in games?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 47-56.
    17. Chen, Chia-Ching & Chiu, I-Ming & Smith, John & Yamada, Tetsuji, 2013. "Too smart to be selfish? Measures of cognitive ability, social preferences, and consistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 112-122.
    18. Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2008. "Expected Behavior in the Dictator Game," ThE Papers 08/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    19. Shu-Heng Chen & Ye-Rong Du & Lee-Xieng Yang, 2014. "Cognitive capacity and cognitive hierarchy: a study based on beauty contest experiments," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 9(1), pages 69-105, April.
    20. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    21. Herzenstein, Michal & Dholakia, Utpal M. & Sonenshein, Scott, 2020. "How the number of options affects prosocial choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 356-370.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    beauty contest; response times; level-k; strategic complexity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior

    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:zbw:i4rdps:170. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.i4replication.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.