Dynamic Behavior and Player Types in Majoritarian Multi-Battle Contests

In a dynamic contest where it is costly to compete, a player who is behind must decide whether to surrender or to keep fighting in the face of bleak odds. We experimentally examine the game theoretic prediction of last stand behavior in a multi-battle contest with a winning prize and losing penalty, as well as the contrasting prediction of surrendering in the corresponding contest with no penalty. We find varied evidence in support of these hypotheses in the aggregated data, but more conclusive evidence when scrutinizing individual player behavior. Players’ realized strategies tend to conform to one of several “types”. We develop a taxonomy to classify player types and study how these types interact and how their incidence varies across treatments. Contrary to the theoretical prediction, escalation is the predominant behavior, but last stand and surrendering behaviors also arise at rates responsive to the importance of losing penalties.

[1]  Casper G. de Vries,et al.  An experimental examination of rational rent-seeking , 1998 .

[2]  Roman M. Sheremeta,et al.  Best-of-Three Contest Experiments: Strategic Versus Psychological Momentum , 2012 .

[3]  Daniel T. Knoepfle,et al.  Identifying Predictable Players : ∗ Relating Behavioral Types and Subjects with Deterministic Rules , 2013 .

[4]  Roman M. Sheremeta,et al.  Multi-Battle Contests: An Experimental Study , 2016 .

[5]  Alan Gelder,et al.  From Custer to Thermopylae: Last stand behavior in multi-stage contests , 2014, Games Econ. Behav..

[6]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects , 2002 .

[7]  Somnath Datta,et al.  Rank-Sum Tests for Clustered Data , 2005 .

[8]  Roman M. Sheremeta,et al.  Fight or Flight? Defending Against Sequential Attacks in the Game of Siege , 2010 .

[9]  Roman M. Sheremeta Experimental Comparison of Multi-Stage and One-Stage Contests , 2009, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  J. Vickers,et al.  Racing with Uncertainty , 1987 .

[11]  Dan Kovenock,et al.  Equilibrium and efficiency in the tug-of-war , 2019 .

[12]  C. Noussair,et al.  An experimental study of decisions in dynamic optimization problems , 2000 .

[13]  Somnath Datta,et al.  A Signed‐Rank Test for Clustered Data , 2008, Biometrics.

[14]  Daniel John Zizzo,et al.  Racing with uncertainty: A patent race experiment , 2002 .

[15]  Christiane Ernst,et al.  Bimodal Bidding in Experimental All-Pay Auctions , 2013, Games.

[16]  Tilman Klumpp,et al.  Primaries and the New Hampshire Effect , 2006 .

[17]  David A. Malueg,et al.  Testing Contest Theory: Evidence from Best-of-Three Tennis Matches , 2010, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[18]  Miguel A. Costa-Gomes,et al.  Structural Models of Nonequilibrium Strategic Thinking: Theory, Evidence, and Applications , 2013 .

[19]  Roman M. Sheremeta Overbidding and Heterogeneous Behavior in Contest Experiments , 2013 .

[20]  R. McAfee,et al.  Continuing Wars of Attrition , 2000 .

[21]  John Du,et al.  Experimental Macroeconomics * , 2006 .

[22]  Dan Kovenock,et al.  Multi-Battle Contests , 2006, Games Econ. Behav..

[23]  Guillaume R. Fréchette,et al.  Bargaining and Reputation: An Experiment on Bargaining in the Presence of Behavioral Types , 2014 .

[24]  J. Riley,et al.  Politically Contestable Rents And Transfers , 1989 .

[25]  Roman M. Sheremeta,et al.  New Hampshire Effect: Behavior in Sequential and Simultaneous Election Contests , 2015 .

[26]  Roman M. Sheremeta,et al.  A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments , 2012, Experimental Economics.

[27]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Preemption, Leapfrogging, and Co­mpetition in Patent Races , 1983 .

[28]  Michael R. Baye,et al.  The all-pay auction with complete information , 1990 .

[29]  Rann Smorodinsky,et al.  All-Pay Auctions - An Experimental Study , 2006 .