Feedback

Hi Ricky,
Thank you for your suggestions. I have revised the page and have explicitly stated the incremental contribution of Paper 1 over Paper 2 at the end of the page. Let me try to explain what the statement you were referring to means.
Statement: The pure-strategy Nash equilibria for this game are $(C,D)$ and $(D,C)$, where each player has no incentive to deviate.
What this means is that these pairs of strategies which constitute the pure-strategy Nash equilibria are "self-enforcing", i.e. it makes each player's strategy an optimal (best) response to the other player's strategy. The main point is to show that while Nash equilibria is an intuitive notion of achieving equilibria, it is often a poor predictor of human behavior.