180 likes | 294 Vues
Explore a guessing game involving urns and marbles to understand how social learning impacts decision-making. Discover the concept of information cascade and its influence on individual choices. Dive into game theory experiments to analyze investment decisions and strategic actions. Simulate scenarios to see real-life applications in procurement, technology, and corporate takeovers.
E N D
A Guessing Game • Why are Wolfgang Puck restaurants so crowded? • Why do employers turn down promising job candidates on the basis of rejections by previous employers? • “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.” -- Yogi Berra
The Experiment • Consider two urns: • Urn A contains two blue marbles and one white marble. • Urn B contains two whites and one blue • One of the urns will be chosen randomly • Your job is to guess which urn is chosen
Timing of Moves • A randomly chosen individual will be shown a single draw from the urn (with replacement) • The individual must then guess which urn was chosen • The guess is revealed to the rest of the class, but not the ball drawn from the urn! • Repeat with another individual.
Payoffs • A correct guess is worth $1, an incorrect guess is worth 0.
How to guess correctly? • First player: Let p be the probability that A is chosen. Prior to seeing any marbles, p =.5 • Suppose a blue is chosen: • Pr(A|Blue) = Pr(Blue|A)Pr(A)/Pr(Blue) • Pr(A|Blue) = .667 x .5 / .667 x .5 + .333 x .5 • Pr(A|Blue) = .667 • So if you observe blue, choose A. Observe white, choose B.
Second Player • Suppose second player observes blue also. • Since second person has heard pl 1’s prediction of A, then, she knows pl 1 has seen a blue marble. Hence, prior probabilities are Pr(A)=.667 • Updating: Pr(A|Blue) = .667 x .667 / Pr(Blue) • Pr(A|Blue) = .8 • Suppose that pl 2 saw white, then 50/50 chance of urn A.
Third player • Suppose that when 2 sees a white marble after 1 sees a blue, 2 always predicts B. • Then if 1 & 2 predict A, pl 3 should always predict A! • Why: if 3 sees a blue marble, it’s A is obvious • If 3 sees a white, then his observations are: 1 white + 2 blue (inferred) and blue observations dominate; hence choose A. • All other players will also always choose A!
Information Cascade • The game illustrates the notion of an information cascade -- a subset of information dominates all subsequent info. • Economist offers this as an explanation for widespread use of Prozac. • “Yes, ten million people can be wrong,” The Economist, Feb 18, 1994, p 81.
Game (and Decision) Theory • How did we arrive at this conclusion: • Bayes’ rule • Inferring observation from action • Sequential reasoning • We can then hypothesize • frequency of incorrect information cascades • how to avoid cascades
Investment Decisions • N individuals each of whom makes a once in a lifetime retirement savings decision • Two actions 0 or 1 • Each person receives a signal s, which might be positive or negative • Action 0 is the safe action and pays off 0 • Action 1 is risky and pays off according to the sum of signals received by the N people
Simple Case • Suppose that s is uniformly distributed on [-1,1] • Suppose that an individual observes the entire past history of actions • What strategy should a player choose?
Strategies • Given her information, the problem is to determine the sum of the signals. • Consider player 1’s problem: • 1 only knows her own signal and no others • She also has no actions on which to base her choice. • Player 1 reasons as follows: • All the rest of the players will, on average, have signals that equal zero. • Therefore, if my signal is positive action 1 is good • Otherwise, action 0 is good
Cutoff Rule • Therefore, player 1 follows a cutoff rule: • Choose action 1 if s > 0, else choose 0
Player 2 • Now consider player 2’s problem: • Player 2 gets to observe 1’s action • Player 2 also knows her own signal. • Hence, player 2 knows that if player 1 chose action 1, her signal was, on average 1/2 • If 1 chose action 0 her signal was, on average, -1/2 • Hence, player 2’s “cutoff” depends on what 1 did: • If player one chose the risky action, then 2 chooses risky if her signal is more than -1/2 • If player one chose the safe action, player 2 chooses the risky action if her signal is more than 1/2.
Key insight • Notice that the action of player 1 influences that of player 2 • There’s inertia built in: • If player 1 chose action 1, 2 is more likely to choose it • If player one chose action 0, 2 is more likely to choose that action.
Simulations To see how this situation plays out, we do some simulations.
Real Life • Government procurement decisions • Technology adoption • Experimentation with drugs • Waves of corporate takeovers • Jury verdicts