Is step-j thinking an arbitrary modelling restriction or a fact of human nature?
Is step-j thinking an arbitrary modelling restriction or a fact of human nature?
复制标题
步骤j思考是任意的建模限制还是人性的事实？
DOI：
10.1016/s0167-2681(98)00075-4
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
D. Stahl
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Stahl
在《猜谜游戏中的有限理性规则学习》，游戏与经济行为，16(1996)中，我们将Nagel(1995)的有限理性参与者模型与一个“效果法则”学习模型结合起来，当面对Nagel的数据时，该综合模型的表现优于其他理论。在该模型中，有四个有限理性的行为规则(Step-j，j=0，1，2，3)，每个规则都对应于一个整数级别的推理深度。要求对这些“整型”规则的限制进行辩护是合法的。为什么假设某个玩家认为50%的人是第0步，50%是第1步，因此他自己采用了类似第1.5步的规则，这是不合理的吗？本文构造了一个蕴含无穷多条非整数规则的易处理模型，并进行了对比测试。主要结论是，允许使用非整数规则无助于解释数据。因此，对于Occam‘s Razor，整数规则模型是首选的。这些结果表明，Step-j思维是人性的事实，而不是任意的建模限制。
In `Boundedly Rational Rule Learning in a Guessing Game,' Games and Economic Behavior, 16 (1996), we combined Nagel's (1995) model of boundedly rational players with a `law of effect' learning model, and the synthesis outperformed alternative theories when confronting Nagel's data. In that model, there were four boundedly rational behavioral rules (step-j, j=0, 1, 2, 3), each corresponding to an integer level of depth of reasoning. It is legitimate to ask for a justification of the restriction to these `integer' rules. Why is it not reasonable to suppose that some player believes that 50% of the population is step-0, and 50% is step-1, and so himself adopts something like a step-1.5 rule? This paper constructs a tractable model with potentially infinitely many non-integer rules and conducts comparison tests. The main conclusion is that allowing for non-integer rules does not help to explain the data. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, the integer rule model is preferred. These results suggest that step-j thinking is a fact of human nature rather that an arbitrary modelling restriction.