Construct · 1 fields · 2 citations

rationalizability: a standalone construct

One name. One construct. A landmark on the map.

● anchor · game theory Nearest construct by meaning·not indexed
rationalizability1 CONSTRUCTRationalizabilityBERNHEIM & PEARCE · 1984

A single standalone construct; nearby constructs are located against it in the Collider. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

Game theory

The strategies a rational player could justify against rational opponents

Rationalizability asks what a player could reasonably do using only the assumption that everyone is rational and that this is mutually understood, without presuming players coordinate on an equilibrium. Introduced independently by Bernheim and by Pearce in 1984, the rationalizable strategies are those surviving iterated deletion of strategies that are never a best response to any belief about opponents' play. The referent is a solution concept weaker than Nash equilibrium (every equilibrium strategy is rationalizable, but rationalizability can permit more), making it the natural benchmark for what rationality and common belief in rationality alone imply.[1][2]

Unit
The set of strategies surviving iterated deletion of never-best-responses
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Computed by iteratively removing strategies that are not a best response to any belief over opponents' remaining strategies

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how rationalizability sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this entry

Nearby constructs

best response1 fields · 2 citationsanchor · game theorybelief4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructs

References

  1. Bernheim, B. D. (1984). Rationalizable strategic behavior. Econometrica, 52(4), 1007–1028. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911196
  2. Pearce, D. G. (1984). Rationalizable strategic behavior and the problem of perfection. Econometrica, 52(4), 1029–1050. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911197

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct