The empirical determination of game-theoretical strategies.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Strategies chosen by players in a real game situation were compared to those given by game theory to determine how readily, if at all, naive persons adopt "optimal" rational solutions. The players were forced to choose a set of moves, i. e,, a strategy. They received monetary rewards, the average amount varying according to how close their strategy approximated the game theoretical strategy. Each player participated in several games. The optimal strategies differed from game to game, but the expected payoff was held constant. The games were presented in different sequences to the different players in order to determine the effect, if any, of the order of play. Results indicate that individuals differ markedly in their ability or willingness to adopt a game theoretic strategy. However, a majority of Ss did achieve a game solution in at least one of the 5 games played. The degree to which the players approximated the game theory solution was a function of the optimal strategy associated with each game.
Keywords

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: