  Experimental economics has repeatedly demonstrated that the Nash equilibrium
makes inaccurate predictions for a vast set of games. Instead, several
alternative theoretical concepts predict behavior that is much more in tune
with observed data, with the quantal response equilibrium as the most prominent
example. However, here we show that this equilibrium notion itself, like any
other concept that varies smoothly with the payoffs, is necessarily subject to
framing effects: If the same economic problem is represented in a different but
equivalent way, the predicted results will differ. As a consequence, we argue
that tools and methods that are successful in explaining human behavior in
laboratory experiments may be unsuitable for doing theory.
