Abstract
We study strategic reasoning in a signaling game where players initially have common belief in an outcome distribution and in the event that the sender's beliefs are independent of her type. We characterize the behavioral implications of these epistemic hypotheses by means of a rationalizability procedure with belief restrictions. Our solution concept is related to, but weaker than Divine Equilibrium (Banks and Sobel, 1987). First, we do not obtain a sequential equilibrium, but just a perfect Bayesian equilibrium with heterogeneous off-path beliefs (Fudenberg and He, 2018). Second, when we model how the receiver may rationalize a particular deviation, we take into account that some types could have preferred a different deviation, and we show this is natural and relevant via an economic example.
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.
