IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v211y2011i2p370-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Defending against multiple different attackers

Author

Listed:
  • Hausken, Kjell
  • Bier, Vicki M.

Abstract

One defender defends, and multiple heterogeneous attackers attack, an asset. Three scenarios are considered: the agents move simultaneously; the defender moves first; or the attackers move first. We show how the agents' unit costs of defense and attack, their asset evaluations, and the number of attackers influence their investments, profits, and withdrawal decisions. Withdrawal does not occur in one-period (simultaneous) games between two agents, at least with the commonly used ratio-form contest success function, but can occur in two-period games between two agents. The presence of one particularly strong attacker can cause other attackers to withdraw from the contest if the advantaged attacker appropriates so much of the defender's asset that it is no longer sufficiently attractive to interest other attackers. In such cases, the defender focuses exclusively on the strong attacker. An advantaged defender may be able to deter attacks by moving first, but will continue to suffer from attacks if moving second. This suggests the importance of proactive rather than reactive defense.

Suggested Citation

  • Hausken, Kjell & Bier, Vicki M., 2011. "Defending against multiple different attackers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 370-384, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:211:y:2011:i:2:p:370-384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(10)00879-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 2006. "Defense R&D In The Anti-Terrorist Era," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 177-199.
    3. Keohane, Nathaniel O & Zeckhauser, Richard J, 2003. "The Ecology of Terror Defense," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 201-229, March-May.
    4. J. Amegashie, 2006. "A contest success function with a tractable noise parameter," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 135-144, January.
    5. Azaiez, M.N. & Bier, Vicki M., 2007. "Optimal resource allocation for security in reliability systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 773-786, September.
    6. Kjell Hausken, 2005. "Production and Conflict Models Versus Rent-Seeking Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 59-93, April.
    7. Durham, Yvonne & Hirshleifer, Jack & Smith, Vernon L, 1998. "Do the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Poorer? Experimental Tests of a Model of Power," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 970-983, September.
    8. Stergios Skaperdas, 1996. "Contest success functions (*)," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 283-290.
    9. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    10. Zhuang, Jun & Bier, Vicki M. & Alagoz, Oguzhan, 2010. "Modeling secrecy and deception in a multiple-period attacker-defender signaling game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(2), pages 409-418, June.
    11. Jack Hirshleifer, 1989. "Conflict and rent-seeking success functions: Ratio vs. difference models of relative success," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 101-112, November.
    12. Todd Sandler, 2005. "Collective versus unilateral responses to terrorism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 75-93, July.
    13. Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 807-827, August.
    14. Krueger, Anne O, 1974. "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(3), pages 291-303, June.
    15. Kunreuther, Howard & Heal, Geoffrey, 2003. "Interdependent Security," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 231-249, March-May.
    16. Durham, Yvonne & Hirshleifer, Jack & Smith, Vernon L., 2008. "The Paradox of Power," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 16, pages 127-137, Elsevier.
    17. Kjell Hausken, 2004. "Mutual Raiding of Production and the Emergence of Exchange," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(4), pages 572-586, October.
    18. Halvor Mehlum & Karl Moene, 2006. "Fighting against the odds," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 75-87, January.
    19. Nitzan, Shmuel, 1994. "Modelling rent-seeking contests," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 41-60, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T -Period Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 46-70, March.
    2. Kjell Hausken & Vicki M. Bier & Jun Zhuang, 2009. "Defending Against Terrorism, Natural Disaster, and All Hazards," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Vicki M. M. Bier & M. Naceur Azaiez (ed.), Game Theoretic Risk Analysis of Security Threats, chapter 4, pages 65-97, Springer.
    3. Hausken, Kjell, 2017. "Defense and attack for interdependent systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 582-591.
    4. Hausken, Kjell & Zhuang, Jun, 2013. "The impact of disaster on the strategic interaction between company and government," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 363-376.
    5. Kjell Hausken, 2012. "Game Theoretic Analysis of Standby Systems," Chapters, in: Yair Holtzman (ed.), Advanced Topics in Applied Operations Management, IntechOpen.
    6. Konrad, Kai A., 2007. "Strategy in contests: an introduction [Strategie in Turnieren – eine Einführung]," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Processes and Governance SP II 2007-01, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    7. Kjell Hausken & Gregory Levitin, 2008. "Efficiency of Even Separation of Parallel Elements with Variable Contest Intensity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1477-1486, October.
    8. Kjell Hausken, 2005. "Production and Conflict Models Versus Rent-Seeking Models," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 59-93, April.
    9. Gregory Levitin & Kjell Hausken, 2010. "Resource Distribution in Multiple Attacks Against a Single Target," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1231-1239, August.
    10. Hausken, Kjell, 2006. "Jack Hirshleifer: A Nobel Prize left unbestowed," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 251-276, June.
    11. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "Intelligence and impact contests in systems with redundancy, false targets, and partial protection," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(12), pages 1927-1941.
    12. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    13. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    14. Luis Corchón, 2007. "The theory of contests: a survey," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 11(2), pages 69-100, September.
    15. Garfinkel, Michelle R. & Skaperdas, Stergios, 2007. "Economics of Conflict: An Overview," Handbook of Defense Economics, in: Keith Hartley & Todd Sandler (ed.), Handbook of Defense Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 22, pages 649-709, Elsevier.
    16. Kjell Hausken & Gregory Levitin, 2011. "Shield versus sword resource distribution in K-round duels," 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. 19(4), pages 589-603, December.
    17. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "The strategic interaction between a company and the government surrounding disasters," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 237(1), pages 27-40, February.
    18. Ewerhart, Christian, 2017. "Contests with small noise and the robustness of the all-pay auction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 195-211.
    19. Levitin, Gregory & Hausken, Kjell, 2009. "False targets efficiency in defense strategy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 155-162, April.
    20. R Peng & G Levitin & M Xie & S H Ng, 2011. "Optimal defence of single object with imperfect false targets," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(1), pages 134-141, January.

    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:211:y:2011:i:2:p:370-384. 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.