International Journal of Fuzzy Systems

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 892–907 | Cite as

Loss Aversion Equilibrium of Bimatrix Games with Symmetric Triangular Fuzzy Payoffs

  • Chunsheng Cui
  • Zhongwei Feng
  • Chunqiao TanEmail author
  • Surajit Borkotokey


Inspired by Shalev’s model of loss aversion, we propose a bimatrix game with loss aversion, where the elements in payoff matrices are characterized as symmetric triangular fuzzy numbers, and investigate the effect of loss aversion on equilibrium strategies. Firstly, we define a solution concept of (α, β)-loss aversion Nash equilibrium and prove that it exists in any bimatrix game with loss aversion and symmetric triangular fuzzy payoffs. Furthermore, a sufficient and necessary condition is proposed to find the (α, β)-loss aversion Nash equilibrium. Finally, for a 2 × 2 bimatrix game with symmetric triangular fuzzy payoffs, the relation between the (α, β)-loss aversion Nash equilibrium and loss aversion coefficients is discussed when players are loss averse and it is analyzed when a player can benefit from his opponent’s misperceiving belief about his loss aversion level.


Bimatrix game Symmetric triangular fuzzy payoffs Loss aversion Fuzzy set theory (α, β)-loss aversion Nash equilibrium 



This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71671188 and 71874112), Beijing Intelligent Logistics System Collaborative Innovation Center (BILSCIC-2018KF-04), and Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (2016JJ1024).


  1. 1.
    Asmus, T.C., Dimuro, G.P., Bedregal, B.: On two-player interval-valued fuzzy Bayesian games. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 32(6), 557–596 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bector, C.R., Chandra, S., Vijay, V.: Duality in linear programming with fuzzy parameters and matrix games with fuzzy payoffs. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 146(2004), 253–269 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bector, C.R., Chandra, S.: Fuzzy Mathematical Programming and Fuzzy Matrix Games. Springer, Berlin (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg, J.: Statistical mechanics of random two-player games. Phys. Rev. E 61(3), 2327 (2000)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blau, R.A.: Random-payoff two-person zero-sum games. Oper. Res. 22(6), 1243–1251 (1974)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butnariu, D.: Fuzzy games, a description of the concept. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1, 181–192 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campos, L.: Fuzzy linear programming models to solve fuzzy matrix games. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 32(3), 275–289 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cassidy, R.G., Field, C.A., Kirby, M.J.L.: Solution of a satisficing model for random payoff games. Manag. Sci. 19(3), 266–271 (1972)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chandra, S., Aggarwal, A.: On solving matrix games with pay-offs of triangular fuzzy numbers: certain observations and generalizations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 246(2), 575–581 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charnes, A., Kirby, M.J., Raike, W.M.: Zero-zero chance-constrained games. Theory Probab. Appl. 13(4), 628–646 (1968)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Wu, X.: A new risk criterion in fuzzy environment and its application. Appl. Math. Model. 36(7), 3007–3028 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dittmann, I., Maug, E., Spalt, O.: Sticks or carrots? Optimal CEO compensation when managers are loss averse. J. Finance 65, 2015–2050 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Driesen, B., Perea, A., Peters, H.: On loss aversion in bimatrix games. Theor. Decis. 68(4), 367–391 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Driesen, B., Perea, A., Peters, H.: The Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution with loss aversion. Math. Soc. Sci. 61(1), 58–64 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Driesen, B., Perea, A., Peters, H.: Alternating offers bargaining with loss aversion. Math. Soc. Sci. 64(2), 103–118 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Ranking fuzzy numbers in the setting of possibility theory. Inf. Sci. 30(3), 183–224 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunn, L.F.: Loss aversion and adaptation in the labour market: empirical indifference functions and labour supply. Rev. Econ. Stat. 78, 441–450 (1996)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ein-Dor, L., Kanter, I.: Matrix games with nonuniform payoff distributions. Phys. A 302(1), 80–88 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fishburn, P.C., Kochenberger, G.A.: Two-piece Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decis. Sci. 10(4), 503–518 (1979)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Freund, C., Özden, C.: Trade policy and loss aversion. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 1675–1691 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Furukawa, N.: A parametric total order on fuzzy numbers and a fuzzy shortest route problem. Optimization 30, 367–377 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gani, A.N., Assarudeen, S.N.M.: A new operation on triangular fuzzy number for solving fuzzy linear programming problem. Appl. Math. Sci. 6(12), 525–532 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Genesove, D., Mayer, C.: Loss aversion and seller behavior: evidence from the housing market. Quart. J. Econ. 116, 1233–1260 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harsanyi, J.C.: Games with incomplete information played by ‘Bayesian’ player, Part I. The basic model. Manag. Sci. 14, 159–182 (1967)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–291 (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer, R.M.: Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25(1), 79–100 (1989)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li, C., Zhang, Q.: Nash equilibrium strategy for fuzzy non-cooperative games. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 176(1), 46–55 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, D.F.: Linear programming approach to solve interval-valued matrix games. Omega 39(6), 655–666 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, D.F.: A fast approach to compute fuzzy values of matrix games with triangular fuzzy payoffs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 223(2), 421–429 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ma, W., Luo, X., Jiang, Y.: Matrix games with missing, interval, and ambiguous lottery payoffs of pure strategy profiles and compound strategy profiles. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 33(3), 529–559 (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maeda, T.: Characterization of the equilibrium strategy of the bimatrix game with fuzzy payoff. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 251(2), 885–896 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maeda, T.: On characterization of equilibrium strategy of two-person zero-sum games with fuzzy payoffs. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 139(2), 283–296 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore, R.E.: Method and Application of Interval Analysis. SIAM, Philadelphia (1979)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nan, J.X., Zhang, M.J., Li, D.F.: A methodology for matrix games with payoffs of triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 26(6), 2899–2912 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nash, J.: Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 36, 48–49 (1950)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Negoita, C., Zadeh, L., Zimmermann, H.: Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1(3–28), 61–72 (1978)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nishazaki, I., Sakawa, M.: Equilibrium solution in bimatrix games with fuzzy payoffs. Jpn. J. Fuzzy Theory Syst. 9(3), 307–324 (1997)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nishazaki, I., Sakawa, M.: Fuzzy and Multiobjective Games for Conflict Resolution. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 64. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peters, H.: A preference foundation for constant loss aversion. Working Paper. Maastricht University (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peters, H.: A preference foundation for constant loss aversion. J. Math. Econ. 48(1), 21–25 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ramík, J.: Inequality relation between fuzzy numbers and its use in fuzzy optimization. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 16(2), 123–138 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roberts, D.P.: Nash equilibria of Cauchy-random zero-sum and coordination matrix games. Int. J. Game Theory 34(2), 167–184 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rosenblatt-Wisch, R.: Loss aversion in aggregate macroeconomic time series. Eur. Econ. Rev. 52, 1140–1159 (2008)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sakawa, M., Yano, H.: Feasibility and Pareto optimality for multi-objective programming problems with fuzzy parameters. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 40(1), 1–15 (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schmidt, U.: Reference dependence in cumulative prospect theory. J. Math. Psychol. 47, 122–131 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shalev, J.: Loss aversion equilibrium. Int. J. Game Theory 29(2), 269–287 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Shalev, J.: Loss aversion and bargaining. Theor. Decis. 52, 201–232 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sugden, R.: Reference-dependent subjective expected utility. J. Econ. Theory 111, 172–191 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tan, C., Yi, W., Chen, X.: Bertrand game under a fuzzy environment. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 34(4), 2611–2624 (2018)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tan, C., Liu, Z., Wu, D.D., Chen, X.: Cournot game with incomplete information based on rank-dependent utility theory under a fuzzy environment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56(5), 1789–1805 (2018)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Taylor, S.E.: Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 110(1), 67 (1991)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vijay, V., Chandra, S., Bector, C.R.: Matrix games with fuzzy goals and fuzzy payoffs. Omega 33(5), 425–429 (2005)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Taiwan Fuzzy Systems Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chunsheng Cui
    • 1
  • Zhongwei Feng
    • 2
  • Chunqiao Tan
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Surajit Borkotokey
    • 4
  1. 1.School of InformationBeijing Wuzi UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of BusinessCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  3. 3.School of Government AuditNanjing Audit UniversityNanjingChina
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsDibrugarh UniversityDibrugarhIndia

Personalised recommendations