Holding power in sequential games 1
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11896136 |
|---|---|
| Authors | D Marc Kilgour (0000-0001-8810-8937, Wilfrid Laurier University, corresponding author), Frank C Zagare (0000-0002-9672-9263, Boston University) |
| Year | 1987 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 91-114 |
| Publication date | 1987-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Interactions (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0305-0629 • E-ISSN: 1547-7444 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/03050628708434670 |
| OpenAlex | W2054189226 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 17 |
Holding power is simply the ability of a player to stay at one position longer than his opponent, thereby forcing the opponent to make the next move in a sequential game. In this paper, we illustrate the real world relevance of this concept by examining the Berlin crisis of 1948 and showing that only a holding power interpretation provides a satisfying explanation of the eventual resolution. We define holding power formally and find that, when one player has holding power, the outcome of the conflict is determined. We develop a simple procedure for identifying the holding power outcome in every strict ordinal 2×2 game, and draw several interesting conclusions about the nature of this power. We find that a horizon of six moves or less always ensures that the eventual holding power outcome is reached. We also find that holding power outcomes are always Pareto‐superior, except in a Prisoners’ Dilemma game when the initial position of the player without holding power is associated with the noncooperative Nash equilibrium. Finally, we determine that the holding power outcome depends on which player has this power in just 15 of the 78 distinct 2×2 ordinal games. In 9 of these games, holding power is effective in the sense that a player does better when he has holding power. In the remaining 6 cases, though, the possession of holding power is actually a disadvantage—a player prefers that his opponent have holding power rather than himself. We provide an explanation for this occasional phenomenon
Adversary · Computer security · Dilemma · Economics · Mathematical economics · Outcome (game theory · Political science · Position (finance · Possession (linguistics · Power (physics · Relevance (law · Computer Science · Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Game Theory and Applications · Mathematics
Sequential Equilibria
Conflict Among Nations
Dynamic Models of International Conflict
The War Ledger
Nonmyopic Equilibria in 2×2 Games
Political Equilibrium
Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars
A Game-Theoretic Analysis Of the Vietnam Negotiations
Dynamic Games and Dynamic Contract Theory
Reformed sinner" and "lapsed saint" strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma game 1
Threat Power in Sequential Games
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,11 |
| Citation span | 1988 - 1997 (10) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |