This article investigates the use of standard econometric models for quantal choice to study equilibria of extensive form games. Players make choices based on a quantal-choice model and assume other players do so as well. We define an agent quantal response equilibrium (AQRE), which applies QRE to the agent normal form of an extensive form game and imposes a statistical version of sequential rationality. We also define a parametric specification, called logit-AQRE, in which quantal-choice probabilities are given by logit response functions. AQRE makes predictions that contradict the invariance principle in systematic ways. We show that these predictions match up with some experimental findings by Schotter et al. (1994) about the play of games that differ only with respect to inessential transformations of the extensive form. The logit-AQRE also implies a unique selection from the set of sequential equilibria in generic extensive form games. We examine data from signaling game experiments by Banks et al. (1994) and Brandts and Holt(1993). We find that the logit-AQRE selection applied to these games succeeds in predicting patterns of behavior observed in these experiments, even when our prediction conflicts with more standard equilibrium refinements, such as the intuitive criterion. We also reexamine data from the McKelvey and Palfrey (1992) centipede experiment and find that the AQRE model can account for behavior that had previously been explained in terms of altruistic behavior.

In the evaluation of experiments often the problem arises of how to compare the predictive success of competing probabilistic theories. The quadratic scoring rule can be used for this purpose. Originally, this rule was proposed as an incentive compatible elicitation method for probabilistic expert judgments. It is shown that up to a positive linear transformation, the quadratic scoring rule is characterized by four desirable properties.

Countless experimental studies have shown that markets converge quickly and efficiently to the competitive outcome under many trading institutions, particularly the double auction mechanism. This creates difficulties for Keynesian stories of unemployment creation—which suggest a noncompetitive outcome in an essentially competitive world. Such stories were popular in the late 1960s and 1970s. One of these stories—the dual decision hypothesis of Clower—was seen then as the beginning of a story of unemployment. This article reports the results of an experiment designed to test this hypothesis. Specifically, we set up an experiment in which there are two sequential double-auction markets, in the first of which one good (labour) is traded, after which the second market (goods) is opened and the second good traded. We compare the outcome of our experiment with that of the competitive theory. One general finding is that not enough trade takes place in the two markets. In other words, the usual finding that competitive equilibrium is achieved in double-auction markets is not replicated in this sequential setting.

Data created in a controlled laboratory setting are a relatively new phenomenon to economists. Traditional data analysis methods using either parametric or nonparametric tests are not necessarily the best option available to economists analyzing laboratory data. In 1935, Fisher proposed the randomization technique as an alternative data analysis method when examining treatment effects. The observed data are used to create a test statistic. Then treatment labels are shuffled across the data and the test statistic is recalculated. The original statistic can be ranked against all possible test statistics that can be generated by these data, and a p-value can be obtained. A Monte Carlo analysis of t-test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, and the exact randomization t-test is conducted. The exact randomization t-test compares favorably to the other two tests both in terms of size and power. Given the limited distributional assumptions necessary for implementation of the exact randomization test, these results suggest that experimental economists should consider using the exact randomization test more often.

This article reports two experiments that compared the standard ultimatum game played by individuals with the same game played by three-person groups. In the group treatment, the members of the allocating group conducted a brief, face-to-face discussion in order to decide, as a group, on a proposed division, whereas the members of recipient group held a discussion on whether to accept or reject the proposal. If the proposal was accepted, each group member received an equal share of his group's payoff (the pie inthe group condition was three times that in the individual condition). In both experiments, groups offered less than individuals. But as indicated by the low rejection rate in both treatments, groups were also willing to accept less.