Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Team reasoning cannot be viewed as a payoff transformation.Andrew M. Colman - 2024 - Economics and Philosophy 40 (1):1-11.
    In a recent article in this journal, Duijf claims to have proved that team reasoning can be viewed as a payoff transformation. His formalization mimics team reasoning but ignores its essential agency switch. The possibility of such a payoff transformation was never in doubt, does not imply that team reasoning can be viewed as a payoff transformation, and makes no sense in a game in which payoffs represent players’ utilities. A theorem is proved here that a simpler and more intuitive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Classical and team reasoning in the Centipede Game.David Sklar - 2024 - Theoria 90 (2):225-239.
    This study analyses behaviour in non-zero-sum finite multi-stage games, particularly the Centipede Game. The classical Nash Equilibrium fails to explain empirical behaviour and intuitive logic and has therefore been challenged. This paper introduces the ‘Pure Collective Equilibrium’, or PCE, which describes the equilibrium reached when agents assess their utility not by their own payoffs but by the mean collective payoff of the team, as outlined by some team-reasoning hypotheses. Classical behaviour and purely collective team reasoning then both represent special cases—the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark