Synthese 195 (10):4265-4307 (2018)
AbstractHow do people reason about their opponent in turn-taking games? Often, people do not make the decisions that game theory would prescribe. We present a logic that can play a key role in understanding how people make their decisions, by delineating all plausible reasoning strategies in a systematic manner. This in turn makes it possible to construct a corresponding set of computational models in a cognitive architecture. These models can be run and fitted to the participants’ data in terms of decisions, response times, and answers to questions. We validate these claims on the basis of an earlier game-theoretic experiment about the turn-taking game “Marble Drop with Surprising Opponent”, in which the opponent often starts with a seemingly irrational move. We explore two ways of segregating the participants into reasonable “player types”. The first way is based on latent class analysis, which divides the players into three classes according to their first decisions in the game: Random players, Learners, and Expected players, who make decisions consistent with forward induction. The second way is based on participants’ answers to a question about their opponent, classified according to levels of theory of mind: zero-order, first-order and second-order. It turns out that increasing levels of decisions and theory of mind both correspond to increasing success as measured by monetary awards and increasing decision times. Next, we use the logical language to express different kinds of strategies that people apply when reasoning about their opponent and making decisions in turn-taking games, as well as the ‘reasoning types’ reflected in their behavior. Then, we translate the logical formulas into computational cognitive models in the PRIMs architecture. Finally, we run two of the resulting models, corresponding to the strategy of only being interested in one’s own payoff and to the myopic strategy, in which one can only look ahead to a limited number of nodes. It turns out that the participant data fit to the own-payoff strategy, not the myopic one. The article closes the circle from experiments via logic and cognitive modelling back to predictions about new experiments.
Similar books and articles
Strategic Reasoning: Building Cognitive Models from Logical Formulas.Sujata Ghosh, Ben Meijering & Rineke Verbrugge - 2014 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 23 (1):1-29.
Subgames within Large Games and the Heuristic of Imitation.Soumya Paul & R. Ramanujam - 2014 - Studia Logica 102 (2):361-388.
Mating strategies as game theory: Changing rules?Linda Mealey - 2000 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):613-613.
Learning to apply theory of mind.Rineke Verbrugge & Lisette Mol - 2008 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17 (4):489-511.
Effective choice in all the symmetric 2 × 2 games.David Goforth & David Robinson - 2012 - Synthese 187 (2):579-605.
Cooperation, psychological game theory, and limitations of rationality in social interaction.Andrew M. Colman - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):139-153.
Set as an Instance of a Real-World Visual-Cognitive Task.Enkhbold Nyamsuren & Niels A. Taatgen - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (1):146-175.
Origins of the game theory of law and the limits of harmony in Plato's laws.Arthur J. Jacobson - manuscript
Game Experiments on Cooperation Through Reward and Punishment.Ross Cressman, Jia-Jia Wu, Cong Li & Yi Tao - 2013 - Biological Theory 8 (2):158-166.
Perspective-Taking and Depth of Theory-of-Mind Reasoning in Sequential-Move Games.Jun Zhang, Trey Hedden & Adrian Chia - 2012 - Cognitive Science 36 (3):560-573.
On Loss Aversion in Bimatrix Games.Bram Driesen, Andrés Perea & Hans Peters - 2010 - Theory and Decision 68 (4):367-391.
Quantum-Like Model for Decision Making Process in Two Players Game: A Non-Kolmogorovian Model.Masanari Asano, Masanori Ohya & Andrei Khrennikov - 2011 - Foundations of Physics 41 (3):538-548.
Payoff dominance and the stackelberg heuristic.Andrew M. Colman & Michael Bacharach - 1997 - Theory and Decision 43 (1):1-19.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Vision: Variations on Some Berkeleian Themes.Robert Schwartz & David Marr - 1985 - Philosophical Review 94 (3):411.
How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?John R. Anderson - 2007 - Oup Usa.
Behavioral game theory: Plausible formal models that predict accurately.Colin F. Camerer - 2003 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):157-158.