Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:00:21.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The attack and defense mechanisms: Perspectives from behavioral economics and game theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

Subhasish M. Chowdhury
Subhasish M. Chowdhury*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. s.m.chowdhury@bath.ac.uk https://sites.google.com/site/subhasishmc/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary complements the article by De Dreu and Gross (2019) from the perspectives of behavioral economics and game theory. It aims to provide a bridge between psychology/neuroscience research and economics research in attack-and-defense by stipulating relevant literature, clarifying theoretical structures, and suggesting improvements in experimental designs and possible further investigations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e121
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arce, D. G., Kovenock, D. & Roberson, B. (2012) Weakest-link attacker-defender games with multiple attack technologies. Naval Research Logistics (NRL) 59(6):457–69.Google Scholar
Baik, K. H., Kim, I. G. & Na, S. (2001) Bidding for a group-specific public-good prize. Journal of Public Economics, 82(3):415–29.Google Scholar
Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D. & De Vries, C. G. (1996) The all-pay auction with complete information. Economic Theory 8(2):291–305.Google Scholar
Baye, M. R., Kovenock, D. & De Vries, C. G. (2012) Contests with rank-order spillovers. Economic Theory 51(2):315–50.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M., Jeon, J. Y. & Ramalingam, A. (2018) Property rights and loss aversion in contests. Economic Inquiry 56(3):1492–511.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2011) A generalized Tullock contest. Public Choice 147(3/4):413–20.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M., Sheremeta, R. M. & Turocy, T. L. (2014) Overbidding and overspreading in rent-seeking experiments: Cost structure and prize allocation rules. Games and Economic Behavior 87:224–38.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M. & Topolyan, I. (2016a) The attack-defense group contests: Best-shot versus weakest-link. Economic Inquiry 54:548–57.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. M. & Topolyan, I. (2016b) Best-shot versus weakest-link in political lobbying: an application of group all-pay auction. Social Choice and Welfare 47(4):959–71.Google Scholar
Clark, D. J. & Konrad, K. A. (2007) Asymmetric conflict: Weakest link against best shot. Journal of Conflict Resolution 51:457–69.Google Scholar
Dechenaux, E., Kovenock, D. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2015) A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions, and tournaments. Experimental Economics 18(4):609–69.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D. & Roberson, B. (2012) Conflicts with multiple battlefields. In: The Oxford handbook of the economics of peace and conflict, ed. Garfinkel, M. R. & Skaperdas, S., pp. 503–31. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D. & Roberson, B. (2018) The optimal defense of networks of targets. Economic Inquiry 56(4):2195–211.Google Scholar
Kovenock, D., Roberson, B. & Sheremeta, R. M. (2019) The attack and defense of weakest-link networks. Public Choice 179(3/4):175–94. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-018-0618-1.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (1980) Efficient rent seeking. In: Toward a theory of the rent-seeking society, ed. Buchanan, J. M., Tollison, R. D. & Tullock, G., pp. 97–112. Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar