IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v23y2006i2p181-198.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sequential Analysis of Deterrence Games with a Declining Status Quo

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa J. Carlson

    (Department of Political Science University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho, USA)

  • Raymond Dacey

    (College of Business and Economics University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho, USA, rdacey@uidaho.edu)

Abstract

The model developed in this paper provides a formal prospect theory account of Challenger's behavior in the traditional deterrence game played under sequential decision analysis. The model is used to analyze two basic claims commonly made in the international relations literature regarding the importation of prospect theory into the analysis of crisis games. These claims pertain to Challenger's behavior when the valuation of the status quo is positive and Challenger's behavior when the valuation of the status quo is negative. We model the traditional deterrence game between Challenger and Defender as a one-sided incomplete information game where Challenger is uncertain about Defender's preference ordering. We examine the behavior of Challenger under the condition that the status quo is declining, using a von Neumann—Morgenstern decision rule as specified by expected utility theory, and a Kahneman—Tverksy decision rule as specified by prospect theory. The formal results show that these claims do not hold unconditionally and must be stated more precisely. Furthermore, there exist conditions under which the claims are false. We show that in addition to specifying the valuation of the status quo and the value of the probability of loss, as per the claims, a fuller understanding of Challenger's behavior also requires a specification of Challenger's valuation of the status quo vis-à -vis the valuations of other major payoffs in the game. In so doing, we capture many of the details relevant to a more complete analysis of Challenger's behavior in the deterrence game.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa J. Carlson & Raymond Dacey, 2006. "Sequential Analysis of Deterrence Games with a Declining Status Quo," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 23(2), pages 181-198, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:2:p:181-198
    DOI: 10.1080/07388940600666022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940600666022
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07388940600666022?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1992. "Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(3), pages 647-657, September.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carlson Lisa J & Dacey Raymond, 2008. "The Sensitivity of Critical Risk Values to Small Changes in the Value of the Status Quo," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 89-110, January.

    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. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    2. Alex Stomper & Marie-Louise Vierø, 2015. "Iterated Expectations Under Rank-dependent Expected Utility And Model Consistency," Working Paper 1228, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    3. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Olivier L’Haridon & Horst Zank, 2010. "Separating curvature and elevation: A parametric probability weighting function," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 39-65, August.
    5. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    6. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    7. Xue Dong He & Sang Hu & Jan Obłój & Xun Yu Zhou, 2017. "Technical Note—Path-Dependent and Randomized Strategies in Barberis’ Casino Gambling Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 97-103, February.
    8. Ariane Charpin, 2018. "Tests des modèles de décision en situation de risque. Le cas des parieurs hippiques en France," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 69(5), pages 779-803.
    9. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    11. Gao, Dong Li & Xie, Wei & Ming Lee, Eric Wai, 2022. "Individual-level exit choice behaviour under uncertain risk," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 604(C).
    12. Basieva, Irina & Khrennikova, Polina & Pothos, Emmanuel M. & Asano, Masanari & Khrennikov, Andrei, 2018. "Quantum-like model of subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 150-162.
    13. Olivier Chanel & Graciela Chichilnisky, 2009. "The influence of fear in decisions: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 271-298, December.
    14. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    16. Yves Alarie & Georges Dionne, 2005. "Testing Explanations of Preference Reversal: a Model," Cahiers de recherche 0510, CIRPEE.
    17. Døskeland, Trond M. & Nordahl, Helge A., 2008. "Optimal pension insurance design," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 382-392, March.
    18. Holden, Stein T. & Tilahun, Mesfin, 2019. "How related are risk preferences and time preferences?," CLTS Working Papers 4/19, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 16 Oct 2019.
    19. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Emmanuel Kemel, 2014. "Eliciting Prospect Theory When Consequences Are Measured in Time Units: “Time Is Not Money”," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1844-1859, July.
    20. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2010. "Linking Decision and Time Utilities," MPRA Paper 27541, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:sae:compsc:v:23:y:2006:i:2:p:181-198. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.