Abstract
We study how the complexity of games influences subjects' higher-order rationality. Our approach involves employing the ring game to gauge an individual's rationality level, with the game’s complexity varied to examine the potential causal relationship between game complexity and subjects' higher-order rationality. This study is particularly focused on three main sources of complexity: the structure of the game, the number of zero payoffs within the payoff matrices, and the salience of iterative strategies and dominant strategies in the ring game. Instead of playing with other human players, participants will play with computer-controlled players, which are pre-programmed to always maximize their achievable payoffs and act as equilibrium players. This setup ensures that any reflection on the depth of subjects' thinking is primarily influenced by the game's inherent complexity, rather than their perceptions of how other players might respond to varying levels of complexity. As the study progresses, we aim to compare different methods of measuring complexity, including ex-ante approaches like the subjective rating of games, as well as ex-post methods that consider reaction times and error rates.