IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/chu/wpaper/18-21.html

The Tug-of-War in the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Cary Deck

    (Department of Economics, University of Alabama and Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

  • Roman M. Sheremeta

    (Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University and Economic Science Institute, Chapman University)

Abstract

The tug-of-war is a multi-battle contest often used to describe extended interactions in economics, operations management, political science, and other disciplines. While there has been some theoretical work, to the best of our knowledge, this paper provides the first experimental study of the tug-of-war. The results show notable deviations of behavior from theory derived under standard assumptions. In the first battle of the tug-of-war, subjects often bid less, while in the follow-up battles, they bid more than predicted. Also, contrary to the prediction, bids tend to increase in the duration of the tug-of-war. Finally, extending the margin necessary to win the tug-of-war causes a greater reduction in bidding than either a decrease in the prize or greater impatience despite all three having the same predicted effect. These findings have implications both for theorists and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Cary Deck & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2018. "The Tug-of-War in the Laboratory," Working Papers 18-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:chu:wpaper:18-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/275/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Karagözoğlu, Emin & Sağlam, Çağrı & Turan, Agah R., 2021. "Perseverance and suspense in tug-of-war," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Dong, Lu & Huang, Lingbo, 2019. "Is there no ‘I’ in team? Strategic effects in multi-battle team competition," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PB).
    4. Shakun D. Mago & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Multi‐battle Contests: An Experimental Study," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 84(2), pages 407-425, October.
    5. Christian Ewerhart & Julian Teichgräber, 2019. "Multi-battle contests, finite automata, and the tug-of-war," ECON - Working Papers 318, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    6. 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.
    7. Kai A. Konrad & Florian Morath, 2020. "Escalation in conflict games: on beliefs and selection," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 750-787, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:chu:wpaper:18-21. 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: Megan Luetje (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esichus.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.