When Should Political Scientists Use the Self-Confirming Equilibrium Concept? Benefits, Costs, and an Application to Jury Theorems

Lupia, Arthur and Levine, Adam Seth and Zharinova, Natasha (2008): When Should Political Scientists Use the Self-Confirming Equilibrium Concept? Benefits, Costs, and an Application to Jury Theorems. Forthcoming in: Political Analysis

Abstract

Many claims about political behavior are based on implicit assumptions about how people think. One such assumption, that political actors use identical conjectures when assessing others’ strategies, is nested within applications of widely-used game theoretic equilibrium concepts. When empirical research calls this assumption into question, the self-confirming equilibrium (SCE) concept is an alternate criterion for deriving theoretical claims. Using a series of examples, we examine opportunities and challenges inherent in applying the SCE concept. Our main example focuses on Feddersen and Pesendorfer’s (1998) claim that unanimity rules can lead juries to convict innocent defendants. Using SCE, we show that the claim depends on the assumption that jurors have identical beliefs about one another’s strategies. When juror beliefs vary in ways that follow from empirical jury research, we show that fewer false convictions can occur in equilibrium. Generally, the SCE confers advantages when actors have different conjectures about one another’s strategies.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: jury decision making; self-confirming equilibrium; jury theorem; game theory; political science
• Subjects: K - Law and Economics > K0 - General; D - Microeconomics > D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty > D83 - Search ; Learning ; Information and Knowledge ; Communication ; Belief ; Unawareness; D - Microeconomics > D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making > D72 - Political Processes: Rent-Seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

References

Aumann, Robert. 1974. “Subjectivity and Correlation in Randomized Strategies.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 1(1): 67-96. Aumann, Robert and Adam Brandenberger. 1995. “Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium.” Econometrica 63(5): 1161-1180. Austen-Smith, David, and Jeffrey S. Banks. 1996. “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” American Political Science Review 90(1): 34-45. Austen-Smith, David, and Timothy J. Feddersen. 2006. “Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules.” American Political Science Review 100(2): 209-217. Bernheim, B. Douglas. 1984. “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior.” Econometrica 52(4): 1007-1028. Bjork, Elizabeth Ligon, and Robert Bjork. 1996. “Continuing Influences of To-Be-Forgotten Information.” Consciousness and Cognition 5(1-2): 176-196. Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(1): 116-131. Condorcet, Marquis de. [1785] 1994. Essai sur application de l'analyse a la probability des decisions rendues a la plurality des voix. Translation by lain McLean and Fiona Hewitt. Paris. de Figueiredo, Rui, Jack Rakove, and Barry R. Weingast. 2006. “Rationality, Inaccurate Mental Models and Self-Confirming Equilibrium: A New Understanding of the American Revolution.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 18(4): 384-415. Dekel, Eddie, Drew Fudenberg, and David K. Levine. 1999. “Payoff Information and Self-Confirming Equilibrium.” Journal of Economic Theory 89(2): 165-185. Dekel, Eddie, Drew Fudenberg, and David K. Levine. 2004. “Learning to Play Bayesian Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 46(2): 282-303. Devine, Dennis J., Laura D. Clayton, Benjamin B. Dunford, Rasmy Seying, and Jennifer Pryce. 2001. “Jury Decision Making: 45 Years of Empirical Research on Deliberating Groups.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 7(3) 622-727. Feddersen, Timothy, and Wolfgang Pesendorfer. 1998. “Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts under Strategic Voting.” American Political Science Review 92(1): 23-35. Fudenberg, Drew, and David M. Kreps. 1995. “Learning in Extensive-Form Games I: Self-Confirming Equilibrium.” Games and Economic Behavior 8(1): 20-55. Fudenberg, Drew, and David K. Levine. 1993. “Self-Confirming Equilibrium.” Econometrica 61(3): 523-545. Fudenberg, Drew, and David K. Levine. 1998. The Theory of Learning in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Govindan, Srihari, and Robert Wilson. 2007. “Refinements of Nash Equilibrium.” In Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Guernaschelli, Serena, Richard D. McKelvey and Thomas R. Palfrey. 2000. “An Experimental Study of Jury Decision Rules.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 407-423. Hafer, Catherine, and Dimitri Landa. 2007. “Deliberation as Self-Discovery and Institutions for Political Speech.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3): 329-360. Harsanyi, John. 1967. “Games with Incomplete Information Played by `Bayesian’ Players I: The Basic Model.” Management Science 14(3): 159-182. Harsanyi, John. 1968. “Games with Incomplete Information Played by `Bayesian’ Players II: Bayesian Equilibrium Points.” Management Science 14(3): 320-334. Hastie, Reid, and Tatsuya Kameda. 2005. “The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions.” Psychological Review 112(2)”494-508. Kandel, Eric R., James H. Schwartz, and Thomas M. Jessell. 1995. Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange. Kreps, David, and Robert Wilson. 1982. “Sequential Equilibria.” Econometrica 50(4): 863-894. Kuklinski, James H. (Ed.) 2001. Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kuklinski, James H. (Ed.) 2002. Thinking About Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lupia, Arthur, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin. 2000. “Beyond Rationality: Reason and the Study of Politics.” In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin (eds.) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press. MacCoun, Robert J. 1989. “Experimental Research on Jury Decision Making.” Science 244(4908): 1046-1049. McKelvey, Richard D., and Thomas R. Palfrey. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibria in Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10(1): 6-38. Myerson, Roger B. 2006. “Game-Theoretic Consistency and International Relations.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 18(4):416-433. Nash, John. 1950. “Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36(1): 48-49. Pearce, David G. 1984. “Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection.” Econometrica 52(4): 1029-1050. Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie. 1990. “Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16(1): 90-105. Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie. 1993. “Reasoning in Explanation-based Decision Making.” Cognition 49(1-2): 123-163. Rubinstein, Ariel. 1998. Modeling Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Satz, Debra, and John Ferejohn. 1994. “Rational Choice and Social Theory.” Journal of Philosophy 91(2): 71-87. Schacter, Daniel L. 1996. Searching for Memory: The Brain, The Mind, and The Past. New York: Basic Books. Schacter, Daniel L. 2001. The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Tingley, Dustin. 2005. “Self-confirming Equilibria in Political Science: Cognitive Foundations and Conceptual Issues.” Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Turner, Mark. 2000. “Backstage Cognition in Reason and Choice.” In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, Mark. 2001. Cognitive Dimensions of Social Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wegener, Duane T., Norbert L. Kerr, Monique A. Fleming, and Richard E. Petty. 2000. “Flexible Corrections of Juror Judgments: Implications for Jury Instructions.” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6(3):629-654.