  Determining an individual's strategic reasoning capability based solely on
choice data is a complex task. This complexity arises because sophisticated
players might have non-equilibrium beliefs about others, leading to
non-equilibrium actions. In our study, we pair human participants with computer
players known to be fully rational. This use of robot players allows us to
disentangle limited reasoning capacity from belief formation and social biases.
Our results show that, when paired with robots, subjects consistently
demonstrate higher levels of rationality and maintain stable rationality levels
across different games compared to when paired with humans. This suggests that
strategic reasoning might indeed be a consistent trait in individuals.
Furthermore, the identified rationality limits could serve as a measure for
evaluating an individual's strategic capacity when their beliefs about others
are adequately controlled.
