The Right to Remain Silent

Theory and Decision 48 (2):193-204 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The paper points out that in dynamic games a player may be better-off if other players do not know his choice of strategy. That is, a player may benefit by not revealing (or not pre-determining) the choice of his action in an information set he (thereby) hopes will not be reached. He would be better-off by exercising his ``right to remain silent'' if he believes –- as the empirical evidence shows –- that players display aversion to ``Knightian uncertainty''. In this case, a player who behaves strategically, may wish to avoid revealing his strategy. This is true under various interpretations of the notion of ``strategy profiles''

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Omniscience and omnipotence: How they may help - or hurt - in a game.Steven J. Brams - 1982 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):217 – 231.
Divide-the-Dollar Game Revisited.Nejat Anbarci - 2001 - Theory and Decision 50 (4):295-303.
Variations on a game of Gale (I): Coding strategies.Marion Scheepers - 1993 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 58 (3):1035-1043.
A syntactic approach to rationality in games with ordinal payoffs.Giacomo Bonanno - 2008 - In Giacomo Bonanno, Wiebe van der Hoek & Michael Wooldridge (eds.), Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory. Amsterdam University Press.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
144 (#126,679)

6 months
3 (#1,002,413)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Ellsberg games.Frank Riedel & Linda Sass - 2014 - Theory and Decision 76 (4):469-509.

Add more citations