Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Multi-Heuristic Strategy Choice: Response to Krueger|
|Authors:||Colman, Andrew M.|
Pulford, Briony D.
|Publisher:||American Psychological Association (APA)|
|Citation:||Decision, 2014, in press|
|Abstract:||Social projection cannot adequately explain coordination in common interest games, and nothing resembling social projection underlies team reasoning or strong Stackelberg reasoning. Although our experiments suggest that cognitive hierarchy Level-1 reasoning was most influential in the games that we investigated, strong Stackelberg reasoning and team reasoning were also used quite frequently by the players.|
|Rights:||© 2014, American Psychological Association (APA). Deposited with reference to the publisher’s archiving policy available on the SHERPA/RoMEO website.|
|Description:||This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.|
|Appears in Collections:||Published Articles, School of Psychology|
Files in This Item:
|Multi-Heuristic Strategy Choice.pdf||Post-review (final submitted)||24.71 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.