Many economic models involve a trade-off between current and future rewards. For example, in neoclassical one-sector growth models there is a trade-off between immediate consumption and investment for future consumption. In sequential job search models of labor economics, workers must decide between continuing their job search at a cost or accepting the best wage offered so far. In oligopoly models of tacit collusion, firms decide whether or not to defect from collusive behavior, and the defection leads to short-term benefit but future punishment. These models are all dynamic in the sense that an action at one stage influences the available actions or rewards at a future stage. Many such examples fall into the class of dynamic programming problems and for large classes of such problems, techniques for finding optima are well understood. Less well understood, however, are the decisions which individuals actually make in such dynamic settings. This is an empirical issue which lends itself to the methodology of laboratory investigation. There have already been a number of experiments in which subjects face a sequence of related decisions. Examples include the asset market studies of Camerer and Weigelt [3] and Smith, Suchanek, and Williams [13]. predictions of dynamic game theory have been tested extensively, for example, in the contexts of the centipede game by McKelvey and Palfrey [9], of the repeated prisoner's dilemma by Selten and Stoecker [11] and Andreoni and Miller [1] and of bargaining by Ochs and Roth [10]. Dynamic job search has been studied by Cox and Oaxaca [4] and two armed bandits have been studied by Banks, Olson, and Porter [2]. In the market and game theory studies the decisions made by subjects are complicated by the strategic aspects of the games; subjects' decisions must take into account the strategies they expect the other players to use. In asset markets, subjects seem to have difficulty making decisions and speculative bubbles frequently result. As noted by McCabe, Rassenti, and Smith [8], The robust tendency of laboratory stock markets to produce bubbles is attributable to the myopic trading behavior of subjects. In effect, subjects fail to act according to the backward induction
Read full abstract