Questions of the type “What do you think other people would think?”












1












$begingroup$


For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.



Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?



We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.





Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.



    Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?



    We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.





    Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.



      Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?



      We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.





      Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      For a study in the adoption of new technology, a student and I are developing a questionnaire that will poll domain experts on their opinions of what their colleagues would think about benefits/drawbacks of adopting a particular technology. This is research in social science/business but not strictly game theory, and as we are not economists, we don't know the literature.



      Have economists/game theorists investigated questions of the type What do you think other people would think? If several experts can, say, draw technology acceptance distribution functions that reflect their own beliefs about the community's attitude toward a particular strength or weakness of a new technology, then the geometrical average of those distribution functions could be a starting point for inquiry into ranking the relative importance of a set of several strengths and weaknesses. Has this been done before? By whom?



      We are not asking for a tutorial here, just a pointer to where should we should start looking for prior art.





      Full disclosure: I asked this question on SE/Psychology and Neuroscience and did not receive meaningful answers.







      reference-request game-theory bayesian-game






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 3 hours ago









      Herr K.

      6,89331235




      6,89331235






      New contributor




      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 5 hours ago









      Peter LeopoldPeter Leopold

      1085




      1085




      New contributor




      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Peter Leopold is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.



          The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:




          Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?




          "Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.



          There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "591"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27158%2fquestions-of-the-type-what-do-you-think-other-people-would-think%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.



            The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:




            Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?




            "Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.



            There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              3












              $begingroup$

              Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.



              The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:




              Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?




              "Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.



              There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.






              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                3












                3








                3





                $begingroup$

                Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.



                The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:




                Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?




                "Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.



                There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Epistemic game theory would be the closest (sub-)field that deals with questions involving higher order beliefs among interacting agents.



                The introductory article by Dekel and Siniscalchi is a good entry point to the literature. From its introduction:




                Epistemic game theory formalizes assumptions about rationality and mutual beliefs in a formal language, then studies their behavioral implications in games. Specifically, it asks: what do different notions of rationality and different assumptions about what players believe about ... what others believe about the rationality of players imply regarding play in a game?




                "Epistemic Foundations of Game Theory" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a less technical introduction.



                There is also a strand of literature in behavioral economics that studies cognitive hierarchies. The theories there are developed mostly to explain behaviors in the lab settings. Crawford, Costa-Gomes, and Iriberri (2013) provide a good summary.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 3 hours ago









                Herr K.Herr K.

                6,89331235




                6,89331235






















                    Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Peter Leopold is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Economics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2feconomics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f27158%2fquestions-of-the-type-what-do-you-think-other-people-would-think%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

                    Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

                    Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints