The chain store paradox

The chain store game is a simple game in extensive form which produces an inconsistency between game theoretical reasoning and plausible human behavior. Well-informed players must be expected to disobey game theoretical recommendations.The chain store paradox throws new light on the well-known difficulties arising in connection with finite repetitions of the prisoners dilemma game. Whereas these difficulties can be resolved by the assumption of secondary utilities arising in the course of playing the game, a similar approach to the chain store paradox is less satisfactory.It is argued that the explanation of the paradox requires a limited rationality view of human decision behavior. For this purpose a three-level theory of decision making is developed, where decisions can be made on different levels of rationality. This theory explains why insight into the rational solution of a decision problem does not necessarily mean that the corresponding course of action will be taken.     

Money Does Not Induce Risk Neutral Behavior,but Binary Lotteries Do even Worse

If payoffs are tickets for binary lotteries, which involve only two money prizes, then rationality requires expected value maximization in tickets. This payoff scheme was increasingly used to induce risk neutrality in experiments. The experiment presented here involved lottery choice and evaluation tasks. One subject group was paid in binary lottery tickets, another directly in money. Significantly greater deviations from risk neutral behavior are observed with binary lottery payoffs. This discrepancy increases when subjects have easy access to the alternatives' expected values and mean absolute deviations. Behavioral regularities are observed at least as often as with direct money payoffs.     

Impulse Balance and Multiple‐Period Feedback in the Newsvendor Game

Human subjects in the newsvendor game place suboptimal orders: orders are typically between the expected profit‐maximizing quantity and mean demand (“pull‐to‐center bias”). In previous work, we have shown that impulse balance equilibrium (IBE), which is based on a simple ex post rationality principle along with an equilibrium condition, can predict ordering decisions in the laboratory. In this study, we extend IBE to standing orders and multiple‐period feedback and show that it predicts—in line with previous findings—that constraining newsvendors to make a standing order for a sequence of periods moves the average of submitted orders toward the optimum.