Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:57:07.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matching pennies games as asymmetric models of conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Michał Wiktor Krawczyk Open the ORCID record for Michał Wiktor Krawczyk [Opens in a new window]
Michał Wiktor Krawczyk*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, 00-241 Warsaw, Poland. mkrawczyk@wne.uw.edu.pl http://coin.wne.uw.edu.pl/mkrawczyk/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

De Dreu and Gross (D&G) seem to have disregarded some relevant experimental literature on games of conflict, most notably variations on “matching pennies” games. While in such games, “attacker” and “defender” are typically not explicitly labelled, players’ differentiated roles yield naturally to such notions. These studies partly validate some of D&G's findings and interpretations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e128
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belot, M., Crawford, V. P. & Heyes, C. (2013) Players of Matching Pennies automatically imitate opponents’ gestures against strong incentives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(8):2763–68.Google Scholar
Carter, J. R. & Anderton, C. H. (2001) An experimental test of a predator–prey model of appropriation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 45(1): 83–97.Google Scholar
Colman, A. M. (1999) Game theory and its applications in the social and biological sciences. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2015) A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions, and tournaments. Experimental Economics 18(4):609–69.Google Scholar
Deck, C. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2012) Fight or flight? Defending against sequential attacks in the game of siege. Journal of Conflict Resolution 56(6):1069–88.Google Scholar
Dorris, M. C. & Glimcher, P. W. (2004) Activity in posterior parietal cortex is correlated with the relative subjective desirability of action. Neuron 44(2):365–78.Google Scholar
Eliaz, K. & Rubinstein, A. (2011) Edgar Allan Poe's riddle: Framing effects in repeated matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior 71(1):88–99.Google Scholar
Franke, J., Kanzow, C., Leininger, W. & Schwartz, A. (2013) Effort maximization in asymmetric contest games with heterogeneous contestants. Economic Theory 52(2):589–630.Google Scholar
Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A. & Palfrey, T. R. (2003) Risk averse behavior in generalized matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior 45:97–113.Google Scholar
Hampton, A. N., Bossaerts, P. & O'Doherty, J. P. (2008) Neural correlates of mentalizing-related computations during strategic interactions in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 105(18):6741–46.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D., Roberson, B. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2010) The attack and defense of weakest-link networks. CESifo Working Paper No. 3211.Google Scholar
Krol, M. & Krol, M. (2017) A novel approach to studying strategic decisions with eye-tracking and machine learning. Judgment and Decision Making 12(6):596–609.Google Scholar
Martin, C. F., Bhui, R., Bossaerts, P., Matsuzawa, T. & Camerer, C. (2014) Chimpanzee choice rates in competitive games match equilibrium game theory predictions. Scientific Reports 4:5182.Google Scholar
Nosenzo, D., Offerman, T., Sefton, M. & van der Veen, A. (2013) Encouraging compliance: Bonuses versus fines in inspection games. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 30:623–48.Google Scholar
Nti, K. O. (1999) Rent-seeking with asymmetric valuations. Public Choice 98(3/4):415–30.Google Scholar
Rauhut, H. (2009) Higher punishment, less control? Experimental evidence on the inspection game. Rationality and Society 21(3):359–92.Google Scholar