IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v131y2021i636p1593-1619..html

Focality and Asymmetry in Multi-Battle Contests

Author

Listed:
  • Subhasish M Chowdhury
  • Dan Kovenock
  • David Rojo Arjona
  • Nathaniel T Wilcox

Abstract

This article examines the influence of focality in Colonel Blotto games with a lottery contest success function (CSF), where the equilibrium is unique and in pure strategies. We hypothesise that the salience of battlefields affects strategic behaviour (the salient target hypothesis) and present a controlled test of this hypothesis against Nash predictions, checking the robustness of equilibrium play. When the sources of salience come from asymmetries in battlefield values or labels (as in Schelling, 1960), subjects over-allocate the resource to the salient battlefields relative to the Nash prediction. However, the effect is stronger with salient values. In the absence of salience, we find support for the Nash prediction.

Suggested Citation

  • Subhasish M Chowdhury & Dan Kovenock & David Rojo Arjona & Nathaniel T Wilcox, 2021. "Focality and Asymmetry in Multi-Battle Contests," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1593-1619.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:131:y:2021:i:636:p:1593-1619.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueaa130
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. David Iliaev & Sigal Oren & Ella Segev, 2023. "A Tullock-contest-based approach for cyber security investments," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 61-84, January.
    2. Sun, Xiang & Xu, Jin & Zhou, Junjie, 2023. "Effort discrimination and curvature of contest technology in conflict networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 978-991.
    3. Arad, Ayala & Penczynski, Stefan P., 2024. "Multi-dimensional reasoning in competitive resource allocation games: Evidence from intra-team communication," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 355-377.
    4. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "The attack and defense of weakest-link networks," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 175-194, June.
    5. Li, Xinmi & Zheng, Jie, 2022. "Pure strategy Nash Equilibrium in 2-contestant generalized lottery Colonel Blotto games," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Kovenock, Dan & Rojo Arjona, David, 2019. "A full characterization of best-response functions in the lottery Colonel Blotto game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 33-36.
    7. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    8. David Rojo-Arjona & R. Stefania Sitzia & Jiwei Zheng, 2020. "The More The Better! Increasing Label Saliency as a way to Increase Coordination. An Experimental Investigation," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 20-02, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Dong, Lu & Huang, Lingbo & Lien, Jaimie W. & Zheng, Jie, 2024. "How alliances form and conflict ensues," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 255-276.
    10. Song, Jian & Houser, Daniel, 2025. "Costly waiting in dynamic contests: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 645-678.

    More about this item

    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
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D74 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions

    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:oup:econjl:v:131:y:2021:i:636:p:1593-1619.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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.