Skip to main content
Log in

Refinements of rationalizability for normal-form games

  • Published:
International Journal of Game Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

There exist three equivalent definitions of perfect Nash equilibria which differ in the way “best responses against small perturbations” are defined. It is shown that applying the spirit of these definitions to rationalizability leads to three different refinements of rationalizable strategies which are termed perfect (Bernheim, 1984), weakly perfect and trembling-hand perfect rationalizability, respectively. We prove that weakly perfect rationalizability is weaker than both perfect and proper (Schuhmacher, 1995) rationalizability and in two-player games it is weaker than trembling-hand perfect rationalizability. By means of examples, it is shown that no other relationships can be found.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received: January 1997/final version: August 1998

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Herings, PJ., Vannetelbosch, V. Refinements of rationalizability for normal-form games. Game Theory 28, 53–68 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s001820050098

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001820050098

Navigation