Nash equilibrium often does not seem to accurately predict behavior. In experimental game theory, it is usually assumed that the monetary payoffs in the game represent subjects’ utilities. However, subjects may actually play a very different game. In this case, mutual knowledge of preferences may not be satisfied. In our experiment, we first elicit subjects’ preferences over the monetary payoffs for all players. This allows us to identify equilibria in the games that subjects actually are playing (the preference games). We then examine whether revealing other subjects’ preferences leads to more equilibrium play and find that this information indeed has a significant effect. Furthermore, it turns out that subjects are more likely to play maxmin and maxmax strategies than Nash equilibrium strategies.

纳什均衡经常似乎无法准确预测行为。在实验性博弈论中，通常假设博弈中的货币收益代表主体的效用。但是，主体实际上可能会玩完全不同的游戏。在这种情况下，可能无法满足偏好的相互了解。在我们的实验中，我们首先引起受试者对所有参与者的金钱收益的偏好。这使我们能够确定主体实际玩的游戏（偏好游戏）中的平衡。然后，我们检查了揭示其他对象的偏好是否会导致更多的均衡游戏，并发现此信息确实具有显著作用。此外，事实证明，与Nash平衡策略相比，受试者更有可能玩maxmin和maxmax策略。