Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T11:16:18.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The attack and defense games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Roman M. Sheremeta Open the ORCID record for Roman M. Sheremeta [Opens in a new window]
Roman M. Sheremeta*
Affiliation:
Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106; Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866.  rshereme@gmail.comhttps://sites.google.com/site/romansheremeta/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The attack-and-defense game is a game in which an attacker (a group of attackers) has an incentive to revise the status quo and a defender (a group of defenders) wants to protect it. The asymmetry in objectives creates incompatible interests and results in a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium. However, this equilibrium could be heavily impacted by behavioral considerations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e140
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

Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D. & De Vries, C. G. (2012) Contests with rank-order spillovers. Economic Theory 51(2):315–50.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M., Lee, D. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2013) Top guns may not fire: Best-shot group contests with group-specific public good prizes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 92:94–103.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2011) A generalized Tullock contest. Public Choice 147(3/4):413–20.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M. & Topolyan, I. (2016a) The attack-defense group contests: Best-shot versus weakest-link. Economic Inquiry 54:548–57.Google Scholar
Clark, D. J. & Konrad, K. A. (2007) Asymmetric conflict: Weakest link against best shot. Journal of Conflict Resolution 51:457–69.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection: Or: The 778 preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray.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
Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114:817–68.Google Scholar
Filiz-Ozbay, E. & Ozbay, E. Y. (2007) Auctions with anticipated regret: Theory and experiment. American Economic Review 97:1407–18.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, M. R. & Skaperdas, S. (2007) Economics of conflict: An overview. Handbook of Defense Economics 2:649–709.Google Scholar
Holt, C.A., Kydd, A., Razzolini, L. & Sheremeta, R.M. (2016) The paradox of misaligned profiling: Theory and experimental evidence. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60:482–500.Google Scholar
Kimbrough, E. O., Laughren, K. & Sheremeta, R. (2019) War and conflict in economics: Theories, applications, and recent trends. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.026.Google Scholar
Konrad, K. A. (2009) Strategy and dynamics in contests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D. & Roberson, B. (2018) The optimal defense of networks of targets. Economic Inquiry 56(4):2195–211.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D., Roberson, B. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2019) The attack and defense of weakest-link networks. Public Choice 179(3/4):175–94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0618-1.Google Scholar
Kydd, A. (2011) Terrorism and profiling. Terrorism and Political Violence 23:458–73.Google Scholar
Mago, S. D., Samak, A. C. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2016) Facing your opponents: Social identification and information feedback in contests. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60:459–81.Google Scholar
Rusch, H. & Gavrilets, S. (2019) The logic of animal intergroup conflict: A review. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.05.004.Google Scholar
Sheremeta, R. M. (2010) Experimental comparison of multi-stage and one-stage contests. Games and Economic Behavior 68:731–47.Google Scholar
Sheremeta, R. M. (2018) Behavior in group contests: A review of experimental research. Journal of Economic Surveys 32:683–704.Google Scholar