IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dis/wpaper/dis2603.html

Is hostile behavior intuitive or deliberative? A Hawk-Dove experiment with a varying harshness of conflict

Author

Listed:
  • Ennio Bilancini

  • Leonardo Boncinelli

  • Pablo Marcos-Prieto

  • Chiara Nardi

Abstract

Using a one-shot Hawk–Dove game, we experimentally investigate the effect of different cognitive modes—intuitive (induced by Time Pressure), deliberative (by Time Delay), and motivated deliberative (by Time Delay combined with a written motivation)—on the propensity to behave hostilely (i.e., to play Hawk). We also examine whether cognitive modes affect responsiveness to payoff incentives by varying the harshness of conflict. Our results show that intuition significantly increases the likelihood of hostile behavior, while motivated deliberation reduces it. The harshness of conflict does not significantly affect behavior, and we find no evidence that its effect differs across cognitive manipulations. However, when restricting attention to subjects in the pooled delay conditions, the effect of harshness becomes statistically significant, indicating that responsiveness to payoff incentives may require deliberation. Consistently, we find that deliberation increases the likelihood that subjects best respond to their own beliefs

Suggested Citation

  • Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Pablo Marcos-Prieto & Chiara Nardi, 2026. "Is hostile behavior intuitive or deliberative? A Hawk-Dove experiment with a varying harshness of conflict," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis2603, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    • Handle: RePEc:dis:wpaper:dis2603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dipartimenti.unicatt.it/diseis-wp_2603.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Capraro, Valerio, 2017. "Does the truth come naturally? Time pressure increases honesty in one-shot deception games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 54-57.
    2. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
    3. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2022. "Social value orientation and conditional cooperation in the online one-shot public goods game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 243-272.
    4. Nick Feltovich, 2011. "The Effect of Subtracting a Constant from all Payoffs in a Hawk-Dove Game: Experimental Evidence of Loss Aversion in Strategic Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 814-826, April.
    5. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    6. Grimm, Veronika & Mengel, Friederike, 2011. "Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 113-115, May.
    7. Martin G. Kocher & Julius Pahlke & Stefan T. Trautmann, 2013. "Tempus Fugit : Time Pressure in Risky Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(10), pages 2380-2391, October.
    8. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    10. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    11. Gustav Tinghög & David Andersson & Caroline Bonn & Harald Böttiger & Camilla Josephson & Gustaf Lundgren & Daniel Västfjäll & Michael Kirchler & Magnus Johannesson, 2013. "Intuition and cooperation reconsidered," Nature, Nature, vol. 498(7452), pages 1-2, June.
    12. Achtziger, Anja & Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Wagner, Alexander K., 2016. "The impact of self-control depletion on social preferences in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    14. 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.
    15. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Sebastian Ille & Eugenio Vicario, 2022. "Memory retrieval and harshness of conflict in the hawk–dove game," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 10(2), pages 333-351, October.
    16. Maria Bigoni & Mario Blazquez De Paz & Chloé Le Coq, 2026. "Beyond Hawks and Doves: Can inequality ease coordination?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 81(1), pages 93-111, February.
    17. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    18. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    19. Nick Feltovich, 2011. "The Effect of Subtracting a Constant from all Payoffs in a Hawk‐Dove Game: Experimental Evidence of Loss Aversion in Strategic Behavior," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 814-826, April.
    20. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.
    21. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    22. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2023. "Delaying and motivating decisions in the (Bully) dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    23. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2024. "Manipulating response times in the cognitive reflection test: Time delay boosts deliberation, time pressure hinders it," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    24. Yuanji Wen & Stijn Masschelein & Anmol Ratan, 2022. "Loss aversion in asymmetric anti‐coordination games," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(4), pages 1549-1573, April.
    25. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    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. Thomas Buser & Roel Van Veldhuizen & Yang Zhong, 2025. "Time Pressure Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(3), pages 1909-1924, March.
    2. Emin Karagözoglu & Martin G. Kocher, 2015. "Bargaining under Time Pressure," CESifo Working Paper Series 5685, CESifo.
    3. Crosetto, Paolo & Güth, Werner, 2021. "What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking," Working Papers CESARE 1/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    5. Guilfoos, Todd & Suter, Jordan F., 2025. "Time pressure and motivated delay effects on sanctioning in a social dilemma: Experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Alexander W. Cappelen & Ulrik H. Nielsen & Bertil Tungodden & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Fairness is intuitive," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 727-740, December.
    7. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2023. "Delaying and motivating decisions in the (Bully) dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Anders Poulsen & Axel Sonntag, 2019. "Focality is Intuitive - Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Time Pressure in Coordination Games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 19-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    9. Chisadza, Carolyn & Nicholls, Nicky & Yitbarek, Eleni, 2021. "Group identity in fairness decisions: Discrimination or inequality aversion?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    10. Goeschl, Timo & Lohse, Johannes, 2018. "Cooperation in public good games. Calculated or confused?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 185-203.
    11. Recalde, María P. & Riedl, Arno & Vesterlund, Lise, 2018. "Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 132-147.
    12. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2024. "Manipulating response times in the cognitive reflection test: Time delay boosts deliberation, time pressure hinders it," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    14. Jarke, Johannes & Lohse, Johannes, 2016. "I'm in a hurry, I don't want to know! The effects of time pressure and transparency on self-serving behavior," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 32, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    15. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Nardi, Chiara & Pizziol, Veronica, 2024. "Cooperation is unaffected by the threat of severe adverse events in public goods games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    16. Marianna Belloc & Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Simone D'Alessandro, 2017. "A Social Heuristics Hypothesis for the Stag Hunt: Fast- and Slow-Thinking Hunters in the Lab," CESifo Working Paper Series 6824, CESifo.
    17. Kvarven, Amanda & Strømland, Eirik & Torsvik, Gaute, 2026. "Intuitive prosociality: heterogeneous treatment effects or false positive?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    18. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    19. Gonzalez-Jimenez, David & Capozza, Francesco & Dirkmaat, Thomas & van de Veer, Evelien & van Druten, Amber & Baillon, Aurélien, 2025. "Falling and failing (to learn): Evidence from a nation-wide cybersecurity field experiment with SMEs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    20. Bauer, Michal & Chytilová, Julie & Miguel, Edward, 2020. "Using survey questions to measure preferences: Lessons from an experimental validation in Kenya," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:dis:wpaper:dis2603. 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: Emilio Colombo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dicatit.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.