IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v52y2019i3d10.1007_s00355-018-1155-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Manipulability in a group activity selection problem

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Darmann

    (University of Graz)

Abstract

We consider the aspect of strategic manipulation in a group activity selection problem. Given a set of activities in which they might participate, the agents have preferences over the activities themselves and over the number of participants in the activities; the goal is to assign agents to activities on basis of their preferences. In this paper, we consider the possibility of strategic manipulation involved in providing solutions in such a setting, for the solution concepts of maximum individual rationality, core stability, and Pareto optimality respectively. For three different preference extensions (Gärdenfors extension, maxi–min extension and maxi–max extension) we analyze strategic manipulability with respect to the number of activities available. In general, the considered solution concepts turn out to be prone to strategic manipulation; in some natural special cases, however, strategyproofness is provided by such an aggregation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Darmann, 2019. "Manipulability in a group activity selection problem," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(3), pages 527-557, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:52:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-018-1155-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-018-1155-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-018-1155-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-018-1155-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alcalde, Jose & Revilla, Pablo, 2004. "Researching with whom? Stability and manipulation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 869-887, December.
    2. Papai, Szilvia, 2004. "Unique stability in simple coalition formation games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 337-354, August.
    3. Tayfun Sonmez, 1999. "Strategy-Proofness and Essentially Single-Valued Cores," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(3), pages 677-690, May.
    4. Antonio Romero-Medina & Katari´na Cechlárová, 2001. "Stability in coalition formation games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(4), pages 487-494.
    5. Andreas Darmann & Edith Elkind & Sascha Kurz & Jérôme Lang & Joachim Schauer & Gerhard Woeginger, 2018. "Group activity selection problem with approval preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 767-796, September.
    6. Satterthwaite, Mark Allen, 1975. "Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 187-217, April.
    7. Gibbard, Allan, 1973. "Manipulation of Voting Schemes: A General Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(4), pages 587-601, July.
    8. Andreas Darmann, 2018. "Stable and Pareto optimal group activity selection from ordinal preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1183-1209, November.
    9. Selçuk Özyurt & M. Sanver, 2008. "Strategy-proof resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(1), pages 89-101, January.
    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. Bhaskar Dutta & Anirban Kar & John A. Weymark, 2022. "Strategy-proof club formation with indivisible club facilities," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 261-284, September.

    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. Carmelo Rodríguez-Álvarez, 2009. "Strategy-proof coalition formation," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(3), pages 431-452, November.
    2. Carmelo Rodriguez-Alvarez, 2004. "On the Impossibility of Strategy-Proof Coalition Formation Rules," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(10), pages 1-8.
    3. José Alcalde & Pablo Revilla, 2001. "Tops Responsiveness, Strategy-Proofness And Coalition Formation Problems," Working Papers. Serie AD 2001-11, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    4. Alcalde, Jose & Revilla, Pablo, 2004. "Researching with whom? Stability and manipulation," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 869-887, December.
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2004:i:10:p:1-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Koji Takamiya, 2013. "Coalitional unanimity versus strategy-proofness in coalition formation problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(1), pages 115-130, February.
    7. Alexander Reffgen, 2011. "Generalizing the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem: partial preferences, the degree of manipulation, and multi-valuedness," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 37(1), pages 39-59, June.
    8. Papai, Szilvia, 2004. "Unique stability in simple coalition formation games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 337-354, August.
    9. Dogan, Emre & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2007. "On the alternating use of "unanimity" and "surjectivity" in the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 140-143, July.
    10. Yan Long, 2019. "Strategy-proof group selection under single-peaked preferences over group size," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(3), pages 579-608, October.
    11. Salvador Barberà, 2010. "Strategy-proof social choice," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 828.10, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
    12. Shurojit Chatterji & Arunava Sen, 2011. "Tops-only domains," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 46(2), pages 255-282, February.
    13. Egor Ianovski & Mark C. Wilson, 2019. "Manipulability of consular election rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 363-393, February.
    14. Sinan Ertemel & Levent Kutlu & M. Remzi Sanver, 2015. "Voting games of resolute social choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 187-201, June.
    15. Özyurt, Selçuk & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2009. "A general impossibility result on strategy-proof social choice hyperfunctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 880-892, July.
    16. Sato, Shin, 2009. "Strategy-proof social choice with exogenous indifference classes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 48-57, January.
    17. Felix Brandt & Patrick Lederer & René Romen, 2024. "Relaxed notions of Condorcet-consistency and efficiency for strategyproof social decision schemes," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 63(1), pages 19-55, August.
    18. Lirong Xia, 2020. "How Likely Are Large Elections Tied?," Papers 2011.03791, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    19. Barbera, S. & Bossert, W. & Pattanaik, P.K., 2001. "Ranking Sets of Objects," Cahiers de recherche 2001-02, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    20. Souvik Roy & Soumyarup Sadhukhan, 2019. "A characterization of random min–max domains and its applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 887-906, November.
    21. Mizukami, Hideki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi & Wakayama, Takuma, 2003. "Strategy-Proof Sharing," Working Papers 1170, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

    More about this item

    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:spr:sochwe:v:52:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s00355-018-1155-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.