Advertisement

General Ordinal 2×2 Games in Arms Control Applications

  • Niall M. Fraser
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 26)

Abstract

The most common model of human behavior employed in game theory is the normal form, introduced by von NEUMANN and MORGENSTERN (1953). An example of a two player, two strategy game (“2×2 game”) in normal form is illustrated in Table 1. This particular game is called “Prisoners’ Dilemma”. The possible outcomes are the four cells of the matrix. Player 1 must choose between row R1 and row R2, while player 2 must choose between column C1 and column C2. If Player 1 chooses R1 while 2 chooses CI, the resulting outcome is the upper left cell of the matrix, which, in Prisoners’ Dilemma, is marked 3,3. The numbers in each cell (called “payoffs”) denote the relative preference of each player for the outcome; the first number is for Player 1 and the second for Player 2. The higher the number, the more preferred the outcome. Thus, the most preferred outcome for Player 1 is represented by the (R2, C1) cell, which is marked 4,1. This is Player 2’s least preferred outcome.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Normal Form Solution Concept Prefer Outcome Stability Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axelrod, R. (1984): The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamin, C.M. (1981): Developing a Game/Decision Theoretic Approach to Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis: Some Cases in Recent American Foreign Policy. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, P.G. and Dando, M.R. (1977): Fall Gelb and other games: A hyper-game perspective of the fall of France, 1940. Journal of the Conflict Research Society, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1–32Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, P.G. and Dando, M.R. (1979): Complex strategic analysis: a hyper-game perspective of the fall of France. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 23–32MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, P.G., Dando, M.R. and Sharp, R.G. (1980): Using hypergames to model difficult social issues: an approach to the case of soccer hooliganism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 31, pp. 621–635Google Scholar
  6. Brams, S.J. (1977): Deception in 2x2 games. Journal of Peace Science, Vol. 2, pp. 171–203Google Scholar
  7. Brams, S.J. (1985): Superpower Games: Applying Game Theory to Superpower Conflicts. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1985Google Scholar
  8. Brams, S.J. and Davis, M.D. (1983): The verification problem in arms control: a game theoretic analysis, presentation to the Joint National Meeting of the Operations Research Society of America and the Institute of Management Sciences, Orlando, Florida, Nov. 7–9, 1983Google Scholar
  9. Brams, S.J. and Wittman, D. (1981): Nonmyopic equilibria in 2x2 games, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 1981, Vol. 6, pp. 39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fraser, N.M., Benjamin, C.M. and Powell, C.A. (1985): Optimizing the decision process: structure and stability in complex conflict. IS Notes, in press (accepted October, 1985)Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, N.M., Benjamin, C.M. and Powell, C.A. (1985): Optimizing the decision process: structure and stability in complex conflict. Proceedings, Society for General Systems Research International Conference. Los Angeles, May 27–31, 1985, pp. 1061–1070Google Scholar
  12. Fraser, N.M. and Hipel, K.W. (1979): Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1979, Vol. SMC-9, pp. 181–185Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, N.M. and Hipel, K.W. (1984): Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. New York: North-Holland, 1984MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Fraser, N.M. and Kilgour, D.M. (1985): Nonstrict ordinal 2x2 games: a comprehensive computer assisted analysis of the 726 possibilities. Theory and Decision, in press (accepted October, 1985)Google Scholar
  15. Guyer, M. and Hamburger, H. (1968): A note on a ‘Taxonomy of 2x2 Games’, General Systems, 1968, Vol. 13, 205–208Google Scholar
  16. Howard, N. (1971): Paradoxes of Rationality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1971Google Scholar
  17. Kilgour, D.M. (1984): Equilibria for far-sighted players, Theory and Decision. 1984, Vol. 16, pp. 135–157CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Kilgour, D.M. and Fraser, N.M. (1985): A taxonomy of all ordinal 2x2 games, Department of Management Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1985Google Scholar
  19. Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W. and Fraser, N.M. (1984): Solution concepts in 2x2 games, Large Scale Systems, 1984, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 49–72MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight, K. and Powell, C.A. (1974): Metagame theory and the metagame/options analysis technique: A basic introduction and an application: Bandladesh, World Studies, 1974, Vol. 1, No. 1Google Scholar
  21. Nash, J.F. (1951): Non-cooperative games, Annals of Mathematics, 1951, Vol. 54, pp. 286–295CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Radford, K.J. and Fingerhut, B. (1980): Analysis of a complex decision situation - the Simpsons/Simpsons-Sears merger proposal. OMEGA, 1980, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A.M. (1965): Prisoner’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1965Google Scholar
  24. Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A.M. (1966): The game of Chicken. American Behavioral Scientist, 1966, Vol. 10, pp. 23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rapoport, A., Guyer, M.J. and Gordon, D.G. (1976): The 2x2 Game. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. Rapoport, A. and Guyer, M.J. (1966): A taxonomy of 2x2 games. General Systems, 1966, Vol. 11, pp. 203–214Google Scholar
  27. Snyder, G.H. (1971): Prisoner’s Dilemma and Chicken models in international politics. International Studies Quarterly, 1971, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snyder, G.H. and Diesing, P. (1977): Conflict Among Nations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977Google Scholar
  29. Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1953): Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. 3rd Edition. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1953MATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Zagare, F.C. (1981): Non-myopic equilibria and the Middle East crisis of 1967. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 1981, Vol. 5, pp. 139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zagare, F.C. (1984): Limited move equilibria in 2x2 games. Theory and Decision, 1984, Vol. 16, pp. 1–19CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Zagare, F.C. (1985): The pathology of unilateral deterrence. Dynamic Models of International Conflict, M.D. Ward and U. Luterbacher, ed. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Press, 1985Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niall M. Fraser
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Management SciencesUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations