2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2012.03.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A class of strategy-correlated equilibria in sender–receiver games

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
22
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(24 reference statements)
2
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Let us set L = L 1 and A = A 2 , and let us consider a correlation device as above, which selects communication equilibrium payoff (even not in SINTIR( )) can be achieved as a correlated equilibrium payoff of the cheap talk game. As already pointed out, Blume (2010) proves an analog in Crawford and Sobel's (1982) model.…”
Section: Sender-receiver Gamessupporting
confidence: 60%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Let us set L = L 1 and A = A 2 , and let us consider a correlation device as above, which selects communication equilibrium payoff (even not in SINTIR( )) can be achieved as a correlated equilibrium payoff of the cheap talk game. As already pointed out, Blume (2010) proves an analog in Crawford and Sobel's (1982) model.…”
Section: Sender-receiver Gamessupporting
confidence: 60%
“…One stage of cheap talk suffices then to implement all communication equilibrium outcomes. Recently, Blume (2010) established a similar result in the context of Crawford and Sobel's (1982) sender-receiver game. 5 Forges's (1985) construction goes through if payoff relevant actions are added for the single informed player.…”
Section: Can All Canonical Communication Equilibrium Outcomes Be Implmentioning
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…6 With λ > 0, "talk is not cheap" in our model. Chen (2011) introduces exogenous preference for honesty to a cheap talk model; Kartik, Ottaviani and Squintani (2007) and Kartik (2009) introduce lying costs into cheap talk models.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…6 A higher value of λ means that the respondent is more lying averse, i.e., he has a stronger preference for truth-telling. Similarly, a more stigmatization averse respondent will have a higher ξ.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%