IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v75y2012i1p35-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Forward-looking behavior in Hawk–Dove games in endogenous networks: Experimental evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Berninghaus, Siegfried K.
  • Ehrhart, Karl-Martin
  • Ott, Marion

Abstract

We conduct an experiment in continuous time: every subject can change her links to others and her action in a Hawk–Dove game, which she plays bilaterally with each of her linked partners, at any time. We hypothesize that norms exist regarding who establishes and thus pays for links, and that players take these norms into account when deciding on their strategy. For such limitedly forward-looking players who consider othersʼ linking reactions we introduce a strategy adaptation rule (Anticipatory Better-Reply Rule, ABR) and a related stability criterion (Reaction-Anticipatingly Stable, RAS). Our data support our assumption on linking reactions. Subjects seem to take these reactions into account when deciding to switch from Hawk to Dove (ABR-behavior). However, better-reply behavior is prevalent when short-term profits allure. RAS configurations occur more often than Nash equilibria of the base game; however, with respect to stability they perform similar.

Suggested Citation

  • Berninghaus, Siegfried K. & Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion, 2012. "Forward-looking behavior in Hawk–Dove games in endogenous networks: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 35-52.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:75:y:2012:i:1:p:35-52
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2011.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825611002016
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2011.12.003?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. Philippe Jehiel, 2001. "Limited Foresight May Force Cooperation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(2), pages 369-391.
    2. Yann Bramoullé & Dunia López-Pintado & Sanjeev Goyal & Fernando Vega-Redondo, 2004. "Network formation and anti-coordination games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(1), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Corbae, Dean & Duffy, John, 2008. "Experiments with network formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 81-120, September.
    4. Friedman, Daniel & Oprea, Ryan, 2009. "A Continuous Dilemma ∗," Santa Cruz Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3475m3dq, Department of Economics, UC Santa Cruz.
    5. Simon, Leo K & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B, 1989. "Extensive Form Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1171-1214, September.
    6. Jackson, Matthew O. & Watts, Alison, 2002. "On the formation of interaction networks in social coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 265-291, November.
    7. Jackson, Matthew O. & Wolinsky, Asher, 1996. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 44-74, October.
    8. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:3:y:2008:i:12:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Matthew Jackson & Alison Watts, 2008. "Equilibrium Existence in Bipartite Social Games: A Generalization of Stable Matchings," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 3(12), pages 1-8.
    10. Jackson, Matthew O. & Watts, Alison, 2010. "Social games: Matching and the play of finitely repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 170-191, September.
    11. Neugebauer, Tibor & Poulsen, Anders & Schram, Arthur, 2008. "Fairness and reciprocity in the Hawk-Dove Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 243-250, May.
    12. Barton Lipman, 1986. "Cooperation among egoists in Prisoners' Dilemma and Chicken games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 315-331, January.
    13. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 2000. "A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1181-1230, September.
    14. Tinsley, Catherine H. & O'Connor, Kathleen M. & Sullivan, Brandon A., 2002. "Tough guys finish last: the perils of a distributive reputation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 621-642, July.
    15. Bradford Cornell & Richard Roll, 1981. "Strategies for Pairwise Competition in Markets and Organizations," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 12(1), pages 201-213, Spring.
    16. Morris, Stephen, 1995. "The Common Prior Assumption in Economic Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 227-253, October.
    17. Kosfeld Michael, 2004. "Economic Networks in the Laboratory: A Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, March.
    18. Friedman, James W. & Mezzetti, Claudio, 2001. "Learning in Games by Random Sampling," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 55-84, May.
    19. Hojman, Daniel A. & Szeidl, Adam, 2006. "Endogenous networks, social games, and evolution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 112-130, 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. Boris van Leeuwen & Theo Offerman & Arthur Schram, 2020. "Competition for Status Creates Superstars: an Experiment on Public Good Provision and Network Formation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 18(2), pages 666-707.
    2. Siegfried Berninghaus & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2013. "Equilibrium Selection under Limited Control - An Experimental Study of the Network Hawk-Dove Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-048, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Kirchsteiger, Georg & Mantovani, Marco & Mauleon, Ana & Vannetelbosch, Vincent, 2016. "Limited farsightedness in network formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 97-120.
    4. Siegfried Berninghaus & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2011. "Complexity of Networking - An Experimental Study of the Network Hawk Dove Game," FEMM Working Papers 110024, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    5. Siegfried Berninghaus & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "Myopic behavior and overall utility maximization - A study of linked hawks and doves -," FEMM Working Papers 150014, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.

    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. Berninghaus, Siegfried K. & Ehrhart, Karl-Martin & Ott, Marion, 2008. "Myopically Forward-Looking Agents in a Network Formation Game: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 08-02, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    2. Siegfried Berninghaus & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2015. "Myopic behavior and overall utility maximization - A study of linked hawks and doves -," FEMM Working Papers 150014, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    3. Siegfried Berninghaus & Stephan Schosser & Bodo Vogt, 2013. "Equilibrium Selection under Limited Control - An Experimental Study of the Network Hawk-Dove Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-048, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Staudigl, Mathias & Weidenholzer, Simon, 2014. "Constrained interactions and social coordination," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 41-63.
    5. Jackson, Matthew O. & Zenou, Yves, 2015. "Games on Networks," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    6. Rong, Rong & Houser, Daniel, 2015. "Growing stars: A laboratory analysis of network formation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 380-394.
    7. Kovarik, J. & Mengel, F. & Romero, J.G., 2009. "(Anti-) coordination in networks," Research Memorandum 041, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    8. Falk Armin & Kosfeld Michael, 2012. "It's all about Connections: Evidence on Network Formation," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-36, September.
    9. Péter Bayer & Ani Guerdjikova, 2020. "Optimism leads to optimality: Ambiguity in network formation," Working Papers hal-03005107, HAL.
    10. Goeree, Jacob K. & Riedl, Arno & Ule, Aljaz, 2009. "In search of stars: Network formation among heterogeneous agents," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 445-466, November.
    11. Feri, Francesco, 2007. "Stochastic stability in networks with decay," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 442-457, July.
    12. Francesco Feri & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez, 2013. "Coordination in evolving networks with endogenous decay," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 955-1000, November.
    13. Simon Weidenholzer, 2010. "Coordination Games and Local Interactions: A Survey of the Game Theoretic Literature," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-35, November.
    14. Mariya Teteryatnikova & James Tremewan, 2020. "Myopic and farsighted stability in network formation games: an experimental study," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 69(4), pages 987-1021, June.
    15. Kleimeier, Stefanie & Sander, Harald, 2006. "Regional versus global integration of euro-zone retail banking markets: Understanding the recent evidence from price-based integration measures," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 353-368, July.
    16. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele K. & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2012. "Competition fosters trust," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 195-209.
    17. Myeonghwan Cho, 2010. "Endogenous formation of networks for local public goods," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(4), pages 529-562, October.
    18. Siegfried Berninghaus & Karl-Martin Ehrhart & Marion Ott, 2006. "A network experiment in continuous time: The influence of link costs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 237-251, September.
    19. Takács, Károly, 2010. "Hálózati kísérletek [Network experiments]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 958-979.
    20. Corbae, Dean & Duffy, John, 2008. "Experiments with network formation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 81-120, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Hawk–Dove game; Chicken game; Local interaction; Network formation; Network experiment; Forward-looking players;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gamebe:v:75:y:2012:i:1:p:35-52. 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/inca/622836 .

    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.