IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i11p2229-2245.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deterrence and Risk Preferences in Sequential Attacker–Defender Games with Continuous Efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Vineet M. Payyappalli
  • Jun Zhuang
  • Victor Richmond R. Jose

Abstract

Most attacker–defender games consider players as risk neutral, whereas in reality attackers and defenders may be risk seeking or risk averse. This article studies the impact of players' risk preferences on their equilibrium behavior and its effect on the notion of deterrence. In particular, we study the effects of risk preferences in a single‐period, sequential game where a defender has a continuous range of investment levels that could be strategically chosen to potentially deter an attack. This article presents analytic results related to the effect of attacker and defender risk preferences on the optimal defense effort level and their impact on the deterrence level. Numerical illustrations and some discussion of the effect of risk preferences on deterrence and the utility of using such a model are provided, as well as sensitivity analysis of continuous attack investment levels and uncertainty in the defender's beliefs about the attacker's risk preference. A key contribution of this article is the identification of specific scenarios in which the defender using a model that takes into account risk preferences would be better off than a defender using a traditional risk‐neutral model. This study provides insights that could be used by policy analysts and decisionmakers involved in investment decisions in security and safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Vineet M. Payyappalli & Jun Zhuang & Victor Richmond R. Jose, 2017. "Deterrence and Risk Preferences in Sequential Attacker–Defender Games with Continuous Efforts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2229-2245, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2229-2245
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12768
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12768?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. Xiaojun Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2013. "Cost of Equity in Homeland Security Resource Allocation in the Face of a Strategic Attacker," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1083-1099, June.
    2. Cole, Harold L. & Kocherlakota, Narayana, 2001. "Dynamic Games with Hidden Actions and Hidden States," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 114-126, May.
    3. Vicki Bier & Santiago Oliveros & Larry Samuelson, 2007. "Choosing What to Protect: Strategic Defensive Allocation against an Unknown Attacker," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(4), pages 563-587, August.
    4. Vicki M. Bier & Naraphorn Haphuriwat & Jaime Menoyo & Rae Zimmerman & Alison M. Culpen, 2008. "Optimal Resource Allocation for Defense of Targets Based on Differing Measures of Attractiveness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 763-770, June.
    5. Kjell Hausken, 2011. "Strategic defense and attack of series systems when agents move sequentially," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(7), pages 483-504.
    6. Gregory S. Parnell & Christopher M. Smith & Frederick I. Moxley, 2010. "Intelligent Adversary Risk Analysis: A Bioterrorism Risk Management Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 32-48, January.
    7. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    8. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2007. "Balancing Terrorism and Natural Disasters---Defensive Strategy with Endogenous Attacker Effort," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(5), pages 976-991, October.
    9. Jason Merrick & Gregory S. Parnell, 2011. "A Comparative Analysis of PRA and Intelligent Adversary Methods for Counterterrorism Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1488-1510, September.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Jesus Rios & David Rios Insua, 2012. "Adversarial Risk Analysis for Counterterrorism Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 894-915, May.
    12. David E. Bell, 1982. "Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 961-981, October.
    13. Jun Zhuang & Vicki M. Bier, 2010. "Reasons for Secrecy and Deception in Homeland‐Security Resource Allocation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1737-1743, December.
    14. G Levitin & K Hausken, 2010. "Defence and attack of systems with variable attacker system structure detection probability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(1), pages 124-133, January.
    15. Kjell Hausken, 2002. "Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Game Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 17-27, February.
    16. Ralph L. Keeney & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2011. "A Value Model for Evaluating Homeland Security Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(9), pages 1470-1487, September.
    17. Insua, Insua Rios & Rios, Jesus & Banks, David, 2009. "Adversarial Risk Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(486), pages 841-854.
    18. Kjell Hausken & Jun Zhuang, 2011. "Governments' and Terrorists' Defense and Attack in a T -Period Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(1), pages 46-70, March.
    19. K Hausken & J Zhuang, 2012. "The timing and deterrence of terrorist attacks due to exogenous dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(6), pages 726-735, June.
    20. Nageswara S. V. Rao & Stephen W. Poole & Chris Y. T. Ma & Fei He & Jun Zhuang & David K. Y. Yau, 2016. "Defense of Cyber Infrastructures Against Cyber‐Physical Attacks Using Game‐Theoretic Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 694-710, April.
    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. Agarwal, Puneet & Aziz, Ridwan Al & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "Interplay of rumor propagation and clarification on social media during crisis events - A game-theoretic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 714-733.
    2. Zhang, Xiaoxiong & Ye, Yanqing & Tan, Yuejin, 2020. "How to protect a genuine target against an attacker trying to detect false targets," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 553(C).
    3. Lin, Chen & Xiao, Hui & Kou, Gang & Peng, Rui, 2020. "Defending a series system with individual protection, overarching protection, and disinformation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    4. Zhiheng Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "A Study on a Sequential One‐Defender‐N‐Attacker Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1414-1432, June.
    5. Li, Xiang & Qi, Xiangtong, 2021. "On pricing and quality decisions with risk aversion," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    6. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    7. Li, Yapeng & Qiao, Shun & Deng, Ye & Wu, Jun, 2019. "Stackelberg game in critical infrastructures from a network science perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 705-714.
    8. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    9. Peng, Rui & Xiao, Hui & Guo, Jianjun & Lin, Chen, 2020. "Defending a parallel system against a strategic attacker with redundancy, protection and disinformation," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).
    11. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Technology adoption for airport security: Modeling public disclosure and secrecy in an attacker-defender game," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).

    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. Hunt, Kyle & Zhuang, Jun, 2024. "A review of attacker-defender games: Current state and paths forward," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 313(2), pages 401-417.
    2. Hausken, Kjell, 2024. "Fifty Years of Operations Research in Defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(2), pages 355-368.
    3. Jason R. W. Merrick & Philip Leclerc, 2016. "Modeling Adversaries in Counterterrorism Decisions Using Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 681-693, April.
    4. González-Ortega, Jorge & Ríos Insua, David & Cano, Javier, 2019. "Adversarial risk analysis for bi-agent influence diagrams: An algorithmic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1085-1096.
    5. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Jun Zhuang, 2012. "Robust Allocation of a Defensive Budget Considering an Attacker's Private Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(5), pages 930-943, May.
    6. Wei Wang & Francesco Di Maio & Enrico Zio, 2019. "Adversarial Risk Analysis to Allocate Optimal Defense Resources for Protecting Cyber–Physical Systems from Cyber Attacks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2766-2785, December.
    7. Xiaojun (Gene) Shan & Jun Zhuang, 2014. "Modeling Credible Retaliation Threats in Deterring the Smuggling of Nuclear Weapons Using Partial Inspection---A Three-Stage Game," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 43-62, March.
    8. Mohammad E. Nikoofal & Mehmet Gümüs, 2015. "On the value of terrorist’s private information in a government’s defensive resource allocation problem," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 533-555, June.
    9. Peiqiu Guan & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling Resources Allocation in Attacker‐Defender Games with “Warm Up” CSF," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 776-791, April.
    10. Simon, Jay & Omar, Ayman, 2020. "Cybersecurity investments in the supply chain: Coordination and a strategic attacker," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(1), pages 161-171.
    11. David Rios Insua & David Banks & Jesus Rios, 2016. "Modeling Opponents in Adversarial Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 742-755, April.
    12. Dogucan Mazicioglu & Jason R. W. Merrick, 2018. "Behavioral Modeling of Adversaries with Multiple Objectives in Counterterrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 962-977, May.
    13. Sumitra Sri Bhashyam & Gilberto Montibeller, 2016. "In the Opponent's Shoes: Increasing the Behavioral Validity of Attackers’ Judgments in Counterterrorism Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 666-680, April.
    14. Szidarovszky, Ferenc & Luo, Yi, 2014. "Incorporating risk seeking attitude into defense strategy," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 104-109.
    15. Zhang, Jing & Wang, Yan & Zhuang, Jun, 2021. "Modeling multi-target defender-attacker games with quantal response attack strategies," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Zhiheng Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2019. "A Study on a Sequential One‐Defender‐N‐Attacker Game," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(6), pages 1414-1432, June.
    17. Yanling Chang & Alan Erera & Chelsea White, 2015. "A leader–follower partially observed, multiobjective Markov game," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 103-128, December.
    18. Jie Xu & Jun Zhuang, 2016. "Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in a defender-attacker game with private defender information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 236(1), pages 271-289, January.
    19. Qingqing Zhai & Rui Peng & Jun Zhuang, 2020. "Defender–Attacker Games with Asymmetric Player Utilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 408-420, February.
    20. Hunt, Kyle & Agarwal, Puneet & Zhuang, Jun, 2022. "On the adoption of new technology to enhance counterterrorism measures: An attacker–defender game with risk preferences," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 218(PB).

    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:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:11:p:2229-2245. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.