Comparing Models of Strategic Choice: The Role of Uncertainty and Signaling

e-mail: wand{at}stanford.edu Testing the fit of competing equilibrium solutions to extensiveform games crucially depends on assumptions about the distributionof player types. To illustrate the importance of these assumptionsfor differentiating standard statistical models of strategicchoice, I draw on a game previously analyzed by Lewis and Schultz(2003). The differences that they highlight between a pair ofperfect Bayesian equilibrium and quantal response equilibriummodels are not produced by signaling and updating dynamics asclaimed, but are instead produced by different assumptions aboutthe distribution of player types. The method of analysis developedand the issues raised are applicable to a broad range of structuralmodels of conflict and bargaining.