Explaining Focal Points: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus Team Reasoning
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper reports experimental tests of two alternative explanations of how players use focal points to select equilibria in one-shot coordination games. Cognitive hierarchy theory explains coordination as the result of common beliefs about players’ pre-reflective inclinations towards the relevant strategies; the theory of team reasoning explains it as the result of the players’ using a non-standard form of reasoning. We report two experiments. One finds strong support for team reasoning; the other supports cognitive hierarchy theory. In the light of additional questionnaire evidence, we conclude that players’ reasoning is sensitive to the decision context.
منابع مشابه
The Nature of Salience Revisited: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory versus Team Reasoning
This paper reports experimental tests of two alternative explanations of how players use focal points to select equilibria in one-shot coordination games. Cognitive hierarchy theory explains coordination as the result of common beliefs about players’ pre-reflective inclinations towards the relevant strategies; the theory of team reasoning explains it as the result of the players’ using a non-st...
متن کاملExplaining Strategic Coordination: Cognitive Hierarchy Theory, Strong Stackelberg Reasoning, and Team Reasoning
In common interest games, players generally manage to coordinate their actions on mutually optimal outcomes, but orthodox game theory provides no reason for them to play their individual parts in these seemingly obvious solutions and no justification for choosing the corresponding strategies. A number of theories have been suggested to explain coordination, among the most prominent being versio...
متن کاملNash equilibrium, team reasoning and cognitive hierarchy theory.
This paper comments on two experiments, carried out by Colman, Pulford and Rose, which investigate the prevalence of team reasoning. I argue that because the first experiment uses 'decomposable' games, it cannot discriminate between team-reasoning and the conceptually distinct 'prosocial' orientation. In the second experiment, Colman et al. find more support for the team reasoning hypothesis th...
متن کاملA novel model of clinical reasoning: Cognitive zipper model
Introduction: Clinical reasoning is a vital aspect of physiciancompetence. It has been the subject of academic research fordecades, and various models of clinical reasoning have beenproposed. The aim of the present study was to develop a theoreticalmodel of clinical reasoning.Methods: To conduct our study, we applied the process of theorysynthesis in accordan...
متن کاملConcept Hierarchy Memory Model: a Neural Architecture for Conceptual Knowledge Representation, Learning, and Commonsense Reasoning
This article introduces a neural network based cognitive architecture termed Concept Hierarchy Memory Model (CHMM) for conceptual knowledge representation and commonsense reasoning. CHMM is composed of two subnetworks: a Concept Formation Network (CFN), that acquires concepts based on their sensory representations; and a Concept Hierarchy Network (CHN), that encodes hierarchical relationships b...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008