Guessing the Game: An Individual’s Awareness and Assessment of a Game’s Existence

Abstract

In everyday life, games begin inconspicuously, leaving an individual to stumble upon their assessment of a situation. An unaware individual is unlikely to exhibit strategic behavior in a given situation, which highlights the importance of awareness examination. The purpose of this exploratory analysis is to examine awareness and assessment of a game’s existence at the individual level. That requires examination of respondents’ detection (as an indication of their awareness) and identification (as an indication of their assessment) of game elements in game-like situations and their relation to awareness of the game existence. The empirical data is collected using a scenario technique and is statistically analyzed. The results show that the respondents are, on average, at least partially aware of possibility for strategic interaction (even in vague situations). The revealed regularities point out to the relation of the game elements to game existence belief, but also indicate the presence of psychological biases and information utilization issues. For example, the respondents assign different levels of belief to game existence regarding possible losses or gains. Research limitations involve the use of a small convenience sample and lead to suggestions for results validation in future research. Possible implications of the results are discussed.

Dynamic Awareness and Strategic Adaptation in Cybersecurity: A Game-Theory Approach

“…Game (un)awareness is frequently examined from an epistemic game theory standpoint ( [25,[31][32][33][34]), along with the attempts from the computable and behavioral standpoint (for example, Refs. [35][36][37][38][39]). While existing research offers different approaches to modeling (un)awareness, there are still discrepancies.…”

Untitled

“…En la mayoría de los experimentos en los que los participantes recibieron una recompensa, esta fue un incentivo monetario. El resto de los experimentos premiaron a sus participantes a través de incentivos académicos, como créditos de cursos (Roberts y Goldstone, 2011;Yang y Liu, 2019), o un aumento en la calificación de una asignatura (Kostelic, 2020).…”

“…El 14,92 % utilizó modelos de jerarquía cognitiva o de nivel-k debido al estudio de las condiciones iniciales de un juego a través de la racionalidad, como Berger et al (2016) y Dufwenberg et al (2011. Además, utilizaron modelos de jerarquía cognitiva debido al examen de cómo los individuos interpretan la información, como en Jin (2020) y Kostelic (2020). Por último, el 8,95 % utilizó modelos de respuesta cuántica debido a equilibrios y acciones no precisas, como en Brocas et al (2014), donde se estudió la atención imperfecta ponderada como una forma de ver las estrategias imperfectas ponderadas.…”

“…La jerarquía cognitiva se enfoca más en cómo las condiciones iniciales pueden influir en un juego, es decir, las inconsistencias de las creencias. Como podemos ver en la tabla 3, estas condiciones iniciales pueden estar influenciadas por el nivel de racionalidad de los individuos (Jin, 2020;Johnson y Rips, 2015) o por las implicaciones estratégicas de la conciencia del jugador sobre la existencia de un juego (Kostelic, 2020). Además, el papel de la memoria (Devetag y Warglien, 2003) y la atención (Brocas et al, 2014) son otros puntos de estudio en relación con el punto de referencia de un agente.…”

Business Ethics Decision-Making: Examining Partial Reflective Awareness

“…The choice in this situation can be additionally complicated if there is no trust in the legal system (which might be an explanation for such a high number of indecisive respondents (In terms of perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public, judiciary in Croatia scored worst among the EU countries (the 2019 EU justice scoreboard, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2019_en.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2020)); and the corruption risk of its judicial system is assessed as high, https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/croatia/ (accessed on 15 October 2020). However, this also represents the possibility of using the information possibly unavailable to the modeler [64], meaning that the respondents use the information other than provided in the scenarios (for example, from previous experience). Most respondents chose the lack of action in the third scenario (Table 1), where an involved individual could choose to stop or not to stop the newspaper, where the conflict emerges between the rights to free speech and information, and the welfare of the school.…”