IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/igtrxx/v24y2022i04ns0219198922500116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus Game: An Extension of Battle of the Sexes Game

Author

Listed:
  • Chunlin Wang

    (Davis College of Business and Economics, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA)

  • Joyendu Bhadury

    (Davis College of Business and Economics, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA)

Abstract

This paper introduces “Consensus Game†as a multiplayer extension of the well-known “Battle of the Sexes†game to model situations where multiple parties (e.g., buyers–sellers) need to come to an agreement on a common issue in order for all players to be better off. We develop closed-form analytical expressions for the mixed-strategy Nash Equilibrium of a Consensus Game and thereafter, under a mildly restrictive assumption of completely mixed strategies, demonstrate the uniqueness of this equilibrium. We also show that in the constant-sum version of the Consensus Game, this unique Nash Equilibrium guarantees equal payoffs to all players. This result pertaining to equal payoffs as the only Nash Equilibrium suggests that in applications where multiple parties need to arrive at a consensus in order to share a common and fixed pool of a resource, an equal-utility distribution of the pool is the only stable solution that does not provide any party a unilateral incentive to deviate.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunlin Wang & Joyendu Bhadury, 2022. "Consensus Game: An Extension of Battle of the Sexes Game," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(04), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:igtrxx:v:24:y:2022:i:04:n:s0219198922500116
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219198922500116
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219198922500116
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219198922500116?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. Eva I. Hoppe & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2013. "Contracting under Incomplete Information and Social Preferences: An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1516-1544.
    2. John List & Todd Cherry, 2000. "Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 11-29, June.
    3. Zhao, Jijun & Szilagyi, Miklos N. & Szidarovszky, Ferenc, 2008. "An n-person battle of sexes game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 387(14), pages 3669-3677.
    4. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
    5. R. Muller & Asha Sadanand, 2003. "Order of Play, Forward Induction, and Presentation Effects in Two-Person Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 5-25, June.
    6. repec:feb:framed:0088 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Robert W. Rosenthal & Andrew Weiss, 1984. "Mixed-Strategy Equilibrium in a Market with Asymmetric Information," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 51(2), pages 333-342.
    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. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    2. Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013. "Auctioning the Right to Play Ultimatum Games and the Impact on Equilibrium Selection," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    4. Jiang, Zewu & Zhu, Wanshan & Zhang, Yang & Zhao, Xiaobo & Xie, Jinxing, 2024. "Value of screening in procurement mechanism: An experimental study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(3), pages 1031-1053.
    5. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    6. Bolton, Gary E. & Karagözoğlu, Emin, 2016. "On the influence of hard leverage in a soft leverage bargaining game: The importance of credible claims," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 164-179.
    7. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    8. repec:wyi:journl:002215 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    10. Schmitz, Patrick W., 2021. "On the optimality of outsourcing when vertical integration can mitigate information asymmetries," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    11. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.
    12. Volker Benndorf & Thomas Große Brinkhaus & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2021. "Ultimatum Game Behavior in a Social-Preferences Vacuum Chamber," CESifo Working Paper Series 9280, CESifo.
    13. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    14. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    16. Moscarini, Giuseppe & Ottaviani, Marco, 2001. "Price Competition for an Informed Buyer," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 457-493, December.
    17. Sanjit Dhami & Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2020. "Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion, and Tax Evasion: Theory and Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 8606, CESifo.
    18. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    19. Grimalday, Gianluca & Karz, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, 2012. "Everyone Wants a Chance: Initial Positions and Fairness in Ultimatum Games," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 93, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Dizon-Ross, Rebecca & Dupas, Pascaline & Robinson, Jonathan, 2017. "Governance and the effectiveness of public health subsidies: Evidence from Ghana, Kenya and Uganda," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 150-169.
    21. Ronald Bosman & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frans Van Winden, 2017. "Emotion at Stake—The Role of Stake Size and Emotions in a Power-to-Take Game Experiment in China with a Comparison to Europe," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-22, March.

    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:wsi:igtrxx:v:24:y:2022:i:04:n:s0219198922500116. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/igtr/igtr.shtml .

    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.