9

Applications (see Crawford+ 2010 review)

• Matrix steps– Hedden, Zhang Cog 02, TICS 03

• 2D matrix beauty contest– Chen, Huang, Wang (NatlTaiwanU) 09

• Hide-and-seek – Crawford, Iriberri AER 06; Alec Smith, Forsell+ in prep

• Coordination games & cheaptalk (theory)– Ellingsen, Ostling AER 12?

• Auctions – Crawford, Iriberri Ecma 07; Gneezy MS 05; Ivanov Ecma 09;

Nunnari+ in prep• Private-information betting games

– Brocas+ REStud in press• Global games (theory)

– Kneeland (UBritishColumbia) 09?• Heterogeneous CH/QRE splice

– Rogers, Palfrey, Camerer JEcTheory 09RSF 4.July.2014

RSF 4.July.2014 10

11

2. Lowest unique positive integer game (LUPI)

• Swedish lottery • n=53,000 players• Choose k from 1 to 99,999• Lowest unique number wins 10,000€• If n is Poisson distributed…

– mixed equilibrium solves enp(k+1) = enp(k) – np(k)

Östling, Wang, Chou, Camerer AEJ: Micro 12

RSF 4.July.2014

12

Poisson equilibrium is a surprisingly

good approximation (week 1)…

RSF 4.July.2014

13

……but Q-cognitive hierarchy fits but Q-cognitive hierarchy fits deviationsdeviations

CH τ=1.80

RSF 4.July.2014

14

Lab replicates direction of Lab replicates direction of field deviationsfield deviations

RSF 4.July.2014

RSF 4.July.2014 15

RSF 4.July.2014 16

17

Imitation learning produces Imitation learning produces convergence over time (week convergence over time (week

7)7)

RSF 4.July.2014

18

35

4. Field application: Cold opened (unreviewed) movies (Brown, Camerer, Lovallo AEJ 12, Mgt Sci 13)

• Film distributors choose:– Show movie to critics before

opening

– Withhold (7% 2000-06; 25% 2007-2009)

RSF 4.July.2014

Logical “unravelling argument” predicts no cold openings

(Milgrom Bell J 81, Grossman JLE 81 )

• Suppose quality is U ~ [0,100]Movies below q* are opened cold--> E(q|cold)=q*/2Movies with q [q*/2,q*] are misjudged

judged as bad, they are “not so bad”…. open all movies except very worst

• CH: Naïve moviegoers overestimate q, box office gross is higher than predicted

RSF 4.July.2014 36

37RSF 4.July.2014

38

Low quality movies are cold opened

Average Rating of 30 critics

Col

d O

peni

ngs

RSF 4.July.2014

39

Low quality movies are cold opened

Average Rating of 30 critics

Num

ber

of m

ovie

s

RSF 4.July.2014

Sophisticated moviegoers know cold openings have this quality

40

Low quality movies are cold opened

Average Rating of 30 critics

Num

ber

of m

ovie

s

RSF 4.July.2014

Sophisticated moviegoers know cold openings have this quality

Naive moviegoers think cold openings have this quality

41

Why open cold? • “If you screen [a bad movie] for critics all

they can do is say something which may prevent someone from going to the movie.”

• Greg Basser, CEO Village Roadshow Entertainment Group

• “…if negative reviews are expected, the studio may decide not to screen a picture hoping to delay bad news.”– Mark Litwak, Reel Power

RSF 4.July.2014

OLS estimation strategy

• Bm = αE(qm) + ΣkβkXmk + εm

Box office = f(expected quality,other controls)

• What is E(qm)?

–Reviewed movies: E(qm)=qm

–Cold opened movies: E(qm)> qm (from CH)

•Bm = αCCOLD + αRqm+ ΣkβkXmk + εm

•Coefficient αC > 0 indicates CH naivete

•Coefficient αC = 0 indicates sophisticationRSF 4.July.2014 42

RSF 4.July.2014 43

RSF 4.July.2014 44

Cold opening variable is significantly positive in US15% increase in revenue insignificant in UK, Mexico, US rental (DVD) markets Can be fit with CH model with 1.63 (Brown+ Mgt Sci in press)

No effects in UK, Mexico, US rentals (word leaks out)

RSF 4.July.2014 45

Propensity score matching

RSF 4.July.2014 46

PSM similar to OLS regression

RSF 4.July.2014 47

RSF 4.July.2014 48

Studios learning that cold opening pays?

frontier 2: What is level 0?

• My current view– Level 0 is fast, salient– Fundamentally an empirical question:– Cf. Schelling:

• “one cannot, without empirical evidence, deduce whatever understandings can be perceived in a non-zero sum game of maneuver any more than one can prove, by formal deduction, that a particular joke is bound to be funny.”

RSF 4.July.2014 51

But what’s salient?

• “personal” numbers

• ends + center of a number line

• visual: Itti-Koch “low level” algorithm

• Private info: Strategy = known state– e.g. bid your value in an auction– e.g. report state honestly in sender-receiver

RSF 4.July.2014 52

Neurally Based Models of Visual Salience (Itti Koch Nature 05)

RSF 4.July.2014 53

RSF 4.July.2014 54

Schelling (1960) map

RSF 4.July.2014 55

RSF 4.July.2014 56

RSF 4.July.2014 57

Fails on categorical distinctiveness

RSF 4.July.2014 58

Meta-model approach: Level 0’s focus on strategy features (Wright, Leyton-Brown subm 14)

RSF 4.July.2014 59

Georganas+ 14 (UG1)

RSF 4.July.2014 60

Nash (30%)

Level 1 (33%)

RSF 4.July.2014 61

62

Conclusions• Cognitive hierarchy approach

– Lab, field, eyetracking, fMRI

• Many open questions– Are there distinct types?– Closer link to ToM regions

• Beliefs, intentions, attributions

– Disorders of strategic thinking• Paranoia, gullibility, autism(s)

– Experience and expertise– Endogenized steps

RSF 4.July.2014