IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Perturbed best response dynamics in a hawk–dove game

Listed author(s):
  • Benndorf, Volker
  • Martínez-Martínez, Ismael

We examine the impact of behavioral noise on equilibrium selection in a hawk–dove game with a model that linearly interpolates between the one- and two-population structures in an evolutionary context. Perturbed best response dynamics generates two hypotheses in addition to the bifurcation predicted by standard replicator dynamics. First, when replicator dynamics suggests mixing behavior (close to the one-population model), there will be a bias against hawkish play. Second, polarizing behavior as predicted by replicator dynamics in the vicinity of the two-population model will be less extreme in the presence of behavioral noise. We find both effects in our data set.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016517651730037X
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Economics Letters.

Volume (Year): 153 (2017)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 61-64

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:153:y:2017:i:c:p:61-64
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2017.01.026
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Timothy N. Cason & Daniel Friedman & ED Hopkins, 2014. "Cycles and Instability in a Rock--Paper--Scissors Population Game: A Continuous Time Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 81(1), pages 112-136.
  2. Christoph Brunner & Colin F. Camerer & Jacob K. Goeree, 2011. "Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 X 2 Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 1029-1040, April.
  3. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
  4. Ed Hopkins, 2002. "Two Competing Models of How People Learn in Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2141-2166, November.
  5. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
  6. Blume Lawrence E., 1993. "The Statistical Mechanics of Strategic Interaction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 387-424, July.
  7. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 195-208.
  8. Oprea, Ryan & Henwood, Keith & Friedman, Daniel, 2011. "Separating the Hawks from the Doves: Evidence from continuous time laboratory games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2206-2225.
  9. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
  10. Josef Hofbauer & William H. Sandholm, 2002. "On the Global Convergence of Stochastic Fictitious Play," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(6), pages 2265-2294, November.
  11. Hofbauer, Josef & Hopkins, Ed, 2005. "Learning in perturbed asymmetric games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 133-152, July.
  12. Reinhard Selten & Thorsten Chmura, 2008. "Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2x2-Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 938-966, June.
  13. James Pettit & Daniel Friedman & Curtis Kephart & Ryan Oprea, 2014. "Software for continuous game experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 631-648, December.
  14. Jacob Goeree & Charles Holt & Thomas Palfrey, 2005. "Regular Quantal Response Equilibrium," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(4), pages 347-367, December.
  15. Benndorf, Volker & Martínez-Martínez, Ismael & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2016. "Equilibrium selection with coupled populations in hawk–dove games: Theory and experiment in continuous time," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 472-486.
  16. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Netzer, Nick, 2010. "The logit-response dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 413-427, March.
  17. Reinhard Selten & Thorsten Chmura & Sebastian J. Goerg, 2011. "Stationary Concepts for Experimental 2 X 2 Games: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 1041-1044, April.
  18. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "Quantal Response Equilibrium:A Stochastic Theory of Games," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10743.
  19. Young, H. Peyton, 2011. "Commentary: John Nash and evolutionary game theory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 12-13, January.
  20. Lim, Wooyoung & Neary, Philip R., 2016. "An experimental investigation of stochastic adjustment dynamics," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 208-219.
  21. Mäs, Michael & Nax, Heinrich H., 2016. "A behavioral study of “noise” in coordination games," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 65422, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:153:y:2017:i:c:p:61-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.