IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v41y1997i3p384-406.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperation in Intergroup, N-Person, and Two-Person Games of Chicken

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Bornstein

    (Department of Psychology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

  • David Budescu

    (Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

  • Shmuel Zamir

    (Department of Statistics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Abstract

The authors introduce a new team game, the intergroup chicken game, to model intergroup conflicts involving bilateral threats (e.g., military conflicts, industrial disputes). The group that wins the game is the one that competes while the other group yields, and the benefits associated with winning (e.g., territory, higher wages) are public goods for the members of that group. However, a failure to yield on the part of both groups leads to an outcome (e.g., war, strike) that is disastrous to all the players. The authors report an experiment in which an intergroup chicken game with two players on each team was compared to a two-person chicken game and a (single-group) four-person chicken game. The games were played repeatedly, and each round was preceded by a signaling period. Results showed that subjects were more competitive (and, consequently, less efficient) in the intergroup chicken game than in either the two-person or the four-person chicken game.

Suggested Citation

  • Gary Bornstein & David Budescu & Shmuel Zamir, 1997. "Cooperation in Intergroup, N-Person, and Two-Person Games of Chicken," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(3), pages 384-406, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:41:y:1997:i:3:p:384-406
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002797041003003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002797041003003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002797041003003?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    2. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria II. Applications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 13-29, June.
    3. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1991. "Testing for effects of cheap talk in a public goods game with private information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 183-220, May.
    4. Snidal, Duncan, 1991. "Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 701-726, September.
    5. Bernheim, B. Douglas & Peleg, Bezalel & Whinston, Michael D., 1987. "Coalition-Proof Nash Equilibria I. Concepts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Bendor, Jonathan & Hammond, Thomas H., 1992. "Rethinking Allison's Models," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 301-322, June.
    7. Thomas Palfrey & Howard Rosenthal, 1983. "A strategic calculus of voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 7-53, January.
    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. Sau-Him Lau & Vai-Lam Mui, 2008. "Using Turn Taking to Mitigate Coordination and Conflict Problems in the Repeated Battle of the Sexes Game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 153-183, September.
    2. Ferenc Forgó, 2020. "Exact enforcement value of soft correlated equilibrium for generalized chicken and prisoner’s dilemma games," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(1), pages 209-227, March.
    3. Vai-Lam Mui & Sau-Him Paul Lau, 2004. "Achieving Intertemporal Efficiency and Symmetry through Intratemporal Asymmetry: (Eventual) Turn Taking in a Class of Repeated Mixed-Interest Games," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 636, Econometric Society.
    4. Tjaša Bjedov & Thierry Madiès & Marie Claire Villeval, 2016. "Communication And Coordination In A Two-Stage Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1519-1540, July.
    5. Luhan, Wolfgang J. & Poulsen, Anders U. & Roos, Michael W.M., 2017. "Real-time tacit bargaining, payoff focality, and coordination complexity: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 687-699.
    6. Timothy Cason & Sau-Him Lau & Vai-Lam Mui, 2013. "Learning, teaching, and turn taking in the repeated assignment game," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 335-357, October.
    7. Raab, Philippe & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2009. "Cournot competition between teams: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 691-702, November.
    8. Solan, Eilon, 2000. "Absorbing Team Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 245-261, May.
    9. Pablo Guillen & Danielle Merrett & Robert Slonim, 2015. "A New Solution for the Moral Hazard Problem in Team Production," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(7), pages 1514-1530, July.
    10. Sibly, Hugh & Tisdell, John, 2018. "Cooperation and turn taking in finitely-repeated prisoners' dilemmas: An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 49-56.
    11. Mantilla, Cesar & Murad, Zahra, 2020. "Ego-relevance in team production," SocArXiv zy248, Center for Open Science.
    12. Kelly, Janice R. & Barsade, Sigal G., 2001. "Mood and Emotions in Small Groups and Work Teams," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 99-130, September.
    13. Bornstein, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Nagel, Rosmarie, 2002. "The effect of intergroup competition on group coordination: an experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-25, October.
    14. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2017. "It's your turn: experiments with three-player public good games," MPRA Paper 76565, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Sau-Him Lau & Vai-Lam Mui, 2012. "Using turn taking to achieve intertemporal cooperation and symmetry in infinitely repeated 2 × 2 games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 167-188, February.
    16. Srinivas Arigapudi & Yuval Heller & Amnon Schreiber, 2021. "Sampling dynamics and stable mixing in hawk-dove games," Papers 2107.08423, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    17. Tan, Jonathan H.W. & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2008. "Groups, cooperation and conflict in games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Takuya Sekiguchi & Hisashi Ohtsuki, 2017. "Fixation Probabilities of Strategies for Bimatrix Games in Finite Populations," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 93-111, March.
    19. Luis Alejandro Palacio García & Alexandra Cortés Aguilar & Manuel Muñoz-Herrera, 2015. "The bargaining power of commitment: An experiment of the effects of threats in the sequential hawk–dove game," Rationality and Society, , vol. 27(3), pages 283-308, August.
    20. Arigapudi, Srinivas & Heller, Yuval & Schreiber, Amnon, 2021. "Sampling Dynamics and Stable Mixing in Hawk–Dove Games," MPRA Paper 108819, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Roy, Nilanjan, 2019. "Path of intertemporal cooperation and limits to turn-taking behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 21-36.

    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. Keith L. Dougherty & Julian Edward, 2010. "The Properties of Simple Vs. Absolute Majority Rule: Cases Where Absences and Abstentions Are Important," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 85-122, January.
    2. Pravin Krishna & Devashish Mitra, 2016. "Reciprocated unilateralism in trade policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Political Economy of Trade Policy Theory, Evidence and Applications, chapter 3, pages 37-63, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Matthias Kräkel, 2002. "U-Type versus J-Type Tournaments," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 158(4), pages 614-637, December.
    4. Dutta, Rohan & Levine, David Knudsen & Modica, Salvatore, 2018. "Collusion constrained equilibrium," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 13(1), January.
    5. Saggi, Kamal & Wong, Woan Foong & Yildiz, Halis Murat, 2017. "Preferential Trade Agreements and Rules of the Multilateral Trading System," MPRA Paper 76330, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Van Damme, Eric, 2002. "Strategic equilibrium," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 41, pages 1521-1596, Elsevier.
    7. Casella, Alessandra, 1992. "Participation in a Currency Union," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(4), pages 847-863, September.
    8. Kamal Saggi & Woan Foong Wong & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2022. "The role of non‐discrimination in a world of discriminatory preferential trade agreements," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 174-212, February.
    9. Koczy, Laszlo A., 2006. "The core can be accessed with a bounded number of blocks," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 56-64, December.
    10. Richard E. Baldwin & Frédéric Robert-Nicoud, 2007. "Entry and Asymmetric Lobbying: Why Governments Pick Losers," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 5(5), pages 1064-1093, September.
    11. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    12. Matthias Wrede, 2004. "Small States, Large Unitary States and Federations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 219-240, April.
    13. Michel Breton & Vera Zaporozhets, 2009. "On the equivalence of coalitional and individual strategy-proofness properties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(2), pages 287-309, August.
    14. Richard Dennis & Tatiana Kirsanova, 2010. "Expectations traps and coordination failures: selecting among multiple discretionary equilibria," Working Paper Series 2010-02, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    15. Ernesto Pasten, 2020. "Prudential Policies and Bailouts: A Delicate Interaction," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 38, pages 181-197, October.
    16. Heiko Karle & Martin Peitz & Markus Reisinger, 2020. "Segmentation versus Agglomeration: Competition between Platforms with Competitive Sellers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(6), pages 2329-2374.
    17. Tessa Bold, 2009. "Implications of Endogenous Group Formation for Efficient Risk‐Sharing," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 562-591, March.
    18. Paul Missios & Kamal Saggi & Halis Murat Yildiz, 2018. "External trade diversion, exclusion incentives and the nature of preferential trade agreements," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Kamal Saggi (ed.), Economic Analysis of the Rules and Regulations of the World Trade Organization, chapter 10, pages 223-237, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    19. M. Puy, 2013. "Stable coalition governments: the case of three political parties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(1), pages 65-87, January.
    20. Harbaugh, Rick & To, Ted, 2014. "Opportunistic discrimination," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 192-204.

    More about this item

    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:sae:jocore:v:41:y:1997:i:3:p:384-406. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.