2000 character limit reached
Failures of Contingent Thinking
Published 15 Jul 2020 in cs.AI and econ.TH | (2007.07703v3)
Abstract: In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework to analyze an agent who misinterprets or misperceives the true decision problem she faces. We show that a wide range of behavior observed in experimental settings manifest as failures to perceive implications, in other words, to properly account for the logical relationships between various payoff relevant contingencies. We present a behavioral definition of perceived implication, thereby providing an elicitation technique, and show that an agent's account of implication identifies a subjective state-space that underlies her behavior. By analyzing this state-space, we characterize distinct benchmarks of logical sophistication that drive empirical phenomena. We disentangle static and dynamic rationality. Thus, our framework delivers both a methodology for assessing an agent's level of contingent thinking and a strategy for identifying her beliefs in the absence full rationality.
- Acemoglu, Daron, Victor Chernozhukov, and Muhamet Yildiz, “Fragility of asymptotic agreement under Bayesian learning,” Theoretical Economics, 2016, 11 (1), 187–225.
- Agranov, Marina, Paul J Healy, and Kirby Nielsen, “Non-random randomization,” Available at SSRN, 2020.
- Ahn, David S and Todd Sarver, “Preference for flexibility and random choice,” Econometrica, 2013, 81 (1), 341–361.
- Anscombe, Frank J. and Robert J. Aumann, “A definition of subjective probability,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1963, 34, 199–205.
- Araujo, Felipe A, Stephanie W Wang, and Alistair J Wilson, “The times they are A-changing: Experimenting with dynamic adverse selection,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2021, 13 (4), 1–22.
- Aumann, Robert J, “Interactive epistemology I: knowledge,” International Journal of Game Theory, 1999, 28 (3), 263–300.
- Benjamin, Dan, Aaron Bodoh-Creed, and Matthew Rabin, “Base-rate neglect: Foundations and implications,” 2019.
- Bjorndahl, Adam and Joseph Y Halpern, “Language-based Decisions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.11494, 2021.
- Blume, Lawrence, David Easley, and Joseph Y Halpern, “Constructive decision theory,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2021, 196, 105306.
- Calford, Evan M and Timothy N Cason, “Contingent Reasoning and Dynamic Public Goods Provision,” 2022.
- Charness, Gary and Dan Levin, “The origin of the winner’s curse: a laboratory study,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2009, 1 (1), 207–236.
- Dekel, Eddie, Barton L Lipman, and Aldo Rustichini, “Standard state-space models preclude unawareness,” Econometrica, 1998, 66 (1), 159–173.
- , , and , “Representing preferences with a unique subjective state space,” Econometrica, 2001, 69 (4), 891–934.
- Echenique, Federico, Masaki Miyashita, Yuta Nakamura, Luciano Pomatto, and Jamie Vinson, “Twofold multiprior preferences and failures of contingent reasoning,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2022, 202, 105448.
- Eliaz, Kfir and Ran Spiegler, “A model of competing narratives,” American Economic Review, 2020, 110 (12), 3786–3816.
- , , and Yair Weiss, “Cheating with Models,” American Economic Review: Insights, 2020.
- Ellis, Andrew and Heidi Christina Thysen, “Subjective Causality in Choice,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05957, 2021.
- Enke, Benjamin, “What you see is all there is,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2020, 135 (3), 1363–1398.
- and Florian Zimmermann, “Correlation neglect in belief formation,” The Review of Economic Studies, 2019, 86 (1), 313–332.
- , Uri Gneezy, Brian Hall, David Martin, Vadim Nelidov, Theo Offerman, and Jeroen Van De Ven, “Cognitive biases: Mistakes or missing stakes?,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2021, pp. 1–45.
- Esponda, Ignacio, “Behavioral equilibrium in economies with adverse selection,” American Economic Review, 2008, 98 (4), 1269–91.
- and Emanuel Vespa, “Hypothetical thinking and information extraction in the laboratory,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2014, 6 (4), 180–202.
- and , “Contingent Thinking and the Sure-Thing Principle: Revisiting Classic Anomalies in the Laboratory,” Technical Report 2019.
- Eyster, Erik and Matthew Rabin, “Cursed equilibrium,” Econometrica, 2005, 73 (5), 1623–1672.
- Fishburn, Peter C, “Intransitive indifference with unequal indifference intervals,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970, 7 (1), 144–149.
- Frick, Mira, Ryota Iijima, and Yuhta Ishii, “Misinterpreting others and the fragility of social learning,” Econometrica, 2020, 88 (6), 2281–2328.
- Garfagnini, Umberto and David Walker-Jones, “Non-Bayesian Learning,” Mimeo, 2023.
- Geanakoplos, John, “Game theory without partitions, and applications to speculation and consensus,” 1989.
- Gilboa, Itzhak and David Schmeidler, “Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior,” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 1989, 18, 141–153.
- Golub, Benjamin and Matthew O Jackson, “Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2010, 2 (1), 112–49.
- and Leandro C Rêgo, “Extensive games with possibly unaware players,” in “Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems” 2006, pp. 744–751.
- Heifetz, Aviad, Martin Meier, and Burkhard C Schipper, “A canonical model for interactive unawareness,” in “Proceedings of the 11th conference on Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge” 2007, pp. 177–182.
- Hintikka, Jaakko, “Impossible possible worlds vindicated,” in “Game-theoretical semantics,” Springer, 1979, pp. 367–379.
- Jabarian, Brian and Simon Lazarus, “A Two-Ball Ellsberg Paradox: An Experiment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04605, 2022.
- Jin, Ginger Zhe, Michael Luca, and Daniel Martin, “Is no news (perceived as) bad news? An experimental investigation of information disclosure,” Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research 2015.
- Kagel, John H and Dan Levin, “Independent private value auctions: Bidder behaviour in first-, second-and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders,” The Economic Journal, 1993, 103 (419), 868–879.
- Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky, “On the psychology of prediction.,” Psychological review, 1973, 80 (4), 237.
- and , “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,” Econometrica, 1979, 47 (2), 263–292.
- Kochov, Asen, “A behavioral definition of unforeseen contingencies,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2018, 175, 265–290.
- Kreps, David M, “A representation theorem for “preference for flexibility”,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1979, pp. 565–577.
- Kuzmics, Christoph, Brian W Rogers, and Xiannong Zhang, “An Ellsberg paradox for ambiguity aversion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03603, 2022.
- Lipman, Barton L., “Decision theory without logical omniscience: Toward an axiomatic framework for bounded rationality,” Review of Economic Studies, 1999, 66, 339–361.
- Machina, Mark J and David Schmeidler, “A more robust definition of subjective probability,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1992, pp. 745–780.
- and Marciano Siniscalchi, “Ambiguity and ambiguity aversion,” in “Handbook of the Economics of Risk and Uncertainty,” Vol. 1, Elsevier, 2014, pp. 729–807.
- Mailath, George J and Larry Samuelson, “Learning under Diverse World Views: Model-Based Inference,” American Economic Review, 2020, 110 (5), 1464–1501.
- Marinacci, Massimo, “Probabilistic sophistication and multiple priors,” Econometrica, 2002, 70 (2), 755–764.
- Martínez-Marquina, Alejandro, Muriel Niederle, and Emanuel Vespa, “Failures in Contingent Reasoning: The Role of Uncertainty,” American Economic Review, 2019, 109 (10), 3437–74.
- Minardi, Stefania and Andrei Savochkin, “Subjective contingencies and limited Bayesian updating,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2019, 183, 1–45.
- Mukerji, Sujoy, “Understanding the nonadditive probability decision model,” Economic Theory, 1997, 9 (1), 23–46.
- Niederle, Muriel and Emanuel Vespa, “Cognitive Limitations: Failures of Contingent Thinking,” 2023.
- Park, Hyoeun, “Complexity And Contingent Reasoning,” 2023.
- Piermont, Evan, “Introspective unawareness and observable choice,” Games and Economic Behavior, 2017, 106, 134–152.
- , “Hypothetical Expected Utility,” Technical Report 2021.
- , “Algebraic semantics for relative truth, awareness, and possibility,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.07275, 2022.
- Plott, Charles R and Kathryn Zeiler, “The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the” endowment effect,” subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations,” American Economic Review, 2005, 95 (3), 530–545.
- Quiggin, John, “A theory of anticipated utility,” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1982, 3 (4), 323–343.
- Schmeidler, David, “Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity,” Econometrica, 1989, 57, 571–587.
- Schneider, Florian H and Martin Schonger, “An experimental test of the anscombe–aumann monotonicity axiom,” Management Science, 2019, 65 (4), 1667–1677.
- Strzalecki, Tomasz, “Probabilistic sophistication and variational preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory, 2011, 146 (5), 2117–2125.
- Thaler, Richard H, “Anomalies: The winner’s curse,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1988, 2 (1), 191–202.
- Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman, “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,” science, 1981, 211 (4481), 453–458.
- and , “Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.,” Psychological review, 1983, 90 (4), 293.
- and Derek J Koehler, “Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability.,” Psychological review, 1994, 101 (4), 547.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.