IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pie/dsedps/2018-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some reflections on the "battle of the sexes"

Author

Listed:
  • Pietro Guarnieri
  • Tommaso Luzzati

Abstract

The "battle of the sexes" game is usually taken as an example to illustrate the difficulties of coordination. Two of its hypotheses, however, are unrealistic and not necessary to the story it tells. We refer to the assumptions that (1) "to go separately to the disliked event" gives the same payoff as "to go separately to the favourite event" and that (2) only two options are available to the partners. Relaxing those hypotheses leaves intact the original message of the BoS, while increases its narrative scope. According to the importance attributed by the agents to "to go out together", the modified BoS can predict more outcomes than the original one. For instance, both "to go out separately", and "to play together compromise options" become possible equilibria. After a short survey of how the battle of the sexes is used in game-theory textbooks, we show the consequences of the proposed variations, firstly in a discrete and then in a continuous setting. An application to the recent Italian politics is attempted.

Suggested Citation

  • Pietro Guarnieri & Tommaso Luzzati, 2018. "Some reflections on the "battle of the sexes"," Discussion Papers 2018/239, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
  • Handle: RePEc:pie:dsedps:2018/239
    Note: ISSN 2039-1854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ec.unipi.it/documents/Ricerca/papers/2018-239.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 16, pages 267-297, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Institutions as cognitive media between strategic interactions and individual beliefs," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 17, pages 298-312, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. G. Hodgson., 2007. "What Are Institutions?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 8.
    4. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Game Theory: A Very Short Introduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199218462.
    5. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401.
    6. Binmore, Ken, 2007. "Playing for Real: A Text on Game Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195300574.
    7. Searle, John R., 2005. "What is an institution?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 1-22, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    coordination; compromise solutions; conflict resolution; political alliances;

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • 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:pie:dsedps:2018/239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dspisit.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.