Search

Most work in game theory assumes that players are perfect reasoners and have common knowledge of all significant aspects of the game. In earlier work (Halpern and Rêgo , arxiv.org/abs/0704.2014), we proposed a framework for representing and analyzing games with possibly unaware players, and suggested a generalization of Nash equilibrium appropriate for games with unaware players that we called generalized Nash equilibrium. Here, we use this framework to analyze other solution concepts that have been considered in the game-theory literature, with a focus on sequential equilibrium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the machinery of Game Theory, this article analyzes how shame and guilt affect preferences. Based on abundant psychological literature, we posit that the preference ordering of someone who can feel shame (or guilt) must satisfy a number of axioms and prove that it can be represented by a particular utility function. Understanding how shame and guilt work is important to explain why people respect social norms and exhibit prosocial behavior, many times contrary to their material interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In games with costly signaling, some equilibria are vulnerable to deviations which could be “unambiguously” interpreted as coming from a unique set of Sender-types. This occurs when these types are precisely the ones who gain from deviating for any beliefs the Receiver could form over that set. We show that this idea characterizes a unique equilibrium outcome in two classes of games. First, in monotonic signaling games, only the Riley outcome is immune to this sort of deviation. Our result therefore provides a plausible story behind the selection made by Cho and Kreps’s (Q J Econ 102:179–221, 1987) D1 criterion on this class of games. Second, we examine a version of Crawford and Sobel (Econometrica 50:1431–1451, 1982) model with costly signaling, where standard refinements have no effect. We show that only a Riley-like separating equilibrium is immune to these deviations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The continuously stable strategy (CSS) concept, originally developed as an intuitive static condition to predict the dynamic stability of a monomorphic population, is shown to be closely related to classical game-theoretic dominance criteria when applied to continuous strategy spaces. Specifically, for symmetric and non symmetric two-player games, a CSS in the interior of the continuous strategy space is equivalent to neighborhood half-superiority which, for a symmetric game, is connected to the half-dominance and/or risk dominance concepts. For non symmetric games where both players have a one-dimensional continuous strategy space, an interior CSS is shown to be given by a local version of dominance solvability (called neighborhood dominance solvable). Finally, the CSS and half-superiority concepts are applied to points in the bargaining set of Nash bargaining problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]