Abstract
Studies of strategic sophistication in experimental normal form games commonly assume that subjects’ beliefs are consistent with independent choice. This paper examines whether beliefs are consistent with correlated choice. Players play a sequence of simple 2×2 normal form games with distinct opponents and no feedback. Another set of players, called predictors, report a likelihood ranking over possible outcomes. A substantial proportion of the reported rankings are consistent with the predictors believing that the choice of actions in the 2×2 game are correlated. The extent of correlation over action profiles varies systematically between the type of games (i.e., prisoner’s dilemma, stag hunt, coordination, and strictly competitive) as well as the kind of payments within each type of game (i.e., high vs. low deviation payoffs and symmetric vs. asymmetric payoffs.)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
