IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v301y2022i3p1064-1071.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice stabilities in the graph model for conflict resolution

Author

Listed:
  • Rêgo, Leandro Chaves
  • Kilgour, D. Marc

Abstract

The graph model for conflict resolution is a comprehensive, adaptable system to represent and analyze a strategic conflict. Though construction of a graph model requires relatively little information about preferences, obtaining that information is often the most difficult step of model calibration. We propose a version of the graph model that avoids preferences, relying instead on direct information about individual choices. After defining appropriate choice functions, we extend the five basic graph model stability definitions to this new context. We then show how the new definitions are related, both to each other and to the standard definitions based on preference relations. We also use a simple model to illustrate how choice stabilities can differ from preference-based stabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Rêgo, Leandro Chaves & Kilgour, D. Marc, 2022. "Choice stabilities in the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(3), pages 1064-1071.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:301:y:2022:i:3:p:1064-1071
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.11.034
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721009851
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.11.034?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers 327800275, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    2. Ahmet Alkan, 2001. "original papers : On preferences over subsets and the lattice structure of stable matchings," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 6(1), pages 99-111.
    3. Zhao, Shinan & Xu, Haiyan & Hipel, Keith W. & Fang, Liping, 2019. "Mixed stabilities for analyzing opponents’ heterogeneous behavior within the graph model for conflict resolution," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 621-632.
    4. Amartya Sen, 1997. "Maximization and the Act of Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 745-780, July.
    5. Narayanaswamy Balakrishnan & Efe A. Ok & Pietro Ortoleva, 2021. "Inferential Choice Theory," Working Papers 2021-60, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    6. van Hees, Martin & Jitendranath, Akshath & Luttens, Roland Iwan, 2021. "Choice functions and hard choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    7. Amartya K. Sen, 1971. "Choice Functions and Revealed Preference," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(3), pages 307-317.
    8. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    9. Christian Klamler, 2008. "A distance measure for choice functions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(3), pages 419-425, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sabino, Emerson Rodrigues & Rêgo, Leandro Chaves, 2023. "Optimism pessimism stability in the graph model for conflict resolution for multilateral conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 671-682.
    2. Bekius, Femke & Gomes, Sharlene L., 2023. "A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 925-938.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers 327800275, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    2. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.
    3. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2011. "Rationality, external norms, and the epistemic value of menus," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(4), pages 729-741, October.
    4. Ola Mahmoud, 2017. "On the consistency of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 547-572, December.
    5. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont & Kotaro Suzumura, 2005. "Maximal-Element Rationalizability," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 325-350, June.
    6. Saran, R.R.S., 2008. "The maximal domain for the revelation principle when preferences are menu dependent," Research Memorandum 023, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    7. Jonathan Aldred, 2006. "Incommensurability and Monetary Valuation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 141-161.
    8. Stewart, Rush T., 2020. "Weak pseudo-rationalizability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 23-28.
    9. Caliari, Daniele, 2023. "Behavioural welfare analysis and revealed preference: Theory and experimental evidence," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2023-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Broussolle, Damien, 2005. "Internal consistency of choice, Sen and the spirit of revealed preferences: A behaviorist approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 605-620, October.
    11. Georgios Gerasimou, 2018. "Indecisiveness, Undesirability and Overload Revealed Through Rational Choice Deferral," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(614), pages 2450-2479, September.
    12. Hiroki Nishimura & Efe A. Ok, 2022. "A class of dissimilarity semimetrics for preference relations," Papers 2203.04418, arXiv.org.
    13. Walter Bossert & Yves Sprumont & Kotaro Suzumura, 2006. "Rationalizability of choice functions on general domains without full transitivity," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 27(3), pages 435-458, December.
    14. Bossert, Walter & Suzumura, Kotaro, 2007. "Social Norms and Rationality of Choice," Cahiers de recherche 2007-07, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
    15. Hamid Hasan, 2019. "Confidence in Subjective Evaluation of Human Well-Being in Sen’s Capabilities Perspective," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Susumu Cato, 2018. "Choice functions and weak Nash axioms," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 22(3), pages 159-176, December.
    17. Georgios Gerasimou, 2021. "Towards Eliciting Weak or Incomplete Preferences in the Lab: A Model-Rich Approach," Papers 2111.14431, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    18. Lombardi, Michele, 2009. "Reason-based choice correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 58-66, January.
    19. Giovanni Razzu, 2021. "Economics and duty-motivated choices," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2021-02, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    20. van Hees, Martin & Jitendranath, Akshath & Luttens, Roland Iwan, 2021. "Choice functions and hard choices," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:301:y:2022:i:3:p:1064-1071. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.