In this study, we examine the interactions among elections by considering two parties competing in simultaneous elections, where each party fields candidates in every election. We model these interactions through voters’ utility functions, influenced not just by the policies proposed in a specific election but also by those in concurrent elections. The benchmark result indicates that all candidates adopt positions more polarized than those predicted by the Calvert–Wittman model. This shift occurs because candidates leverage the policy stance of their counterparts in co-partisan elections to pursue policies more aligned with their preferences. In multidistrict elections, candidates from areas with strong ideological leanings deviate further from the median voter's stance at the national level. Moreover, this interaction effect may select candidates with more extreme ideology into the local elections.

It is shown that Estes' formula for the asymptotic behavior of a subject under conditions of partial reinforcement can be derived from the assumption that the subject is behaving rationally in a certain game-theoretic sense and attempting to minimax his regret. This result illustrates the need for specifying the frame of reference or set of the subject when using the assumption of rationality to predict his behavior.

Most economic experiments designed to test theories carefully choose specific games. This paper reports on an experimental design to evaluate how well the minimax hypothesis describes behavior across a population of games. Past studies suggest that the hypothesis is more accurate the closer the equilibrium is to equal probability play of all actions, but many differences between the designs makes direct comparison impossible. We examine the minimax hypothesis by randomly sampling constant sum games with two players and two actions with a unique equilibrium in mixed strategies. Only varying the games, we find behavior is more consistent with minimax play the closer the mixed strategy equilibrium is to equal probability play of each action. The results are robust over all iterations as well as early and final play. Experimental designs in which the game is a variable allow some conclusions to be drawn that cannot be drawn from more conventional experimental designs.

We run an eye-tracking experiment to investigate whether players change their gaze patterns and choices after they experience alternative models of choice in one-shot games. In phase 1 and 3, participants play 2 × 2 matrix games with a human counterpart; in phase 2, they apply specific decision rules while playing with a computer with known behavior. We classify participants in types based on their gaze patterns in phase 1 and explore attentional shifts in phase 3, after players were exposed to the alternative decision rules. Results show that less sophisticated players, who focus mainly on their own payoffs, change their gaze patterns towards the evaluation of others’ incentives in phase 3. This attentional shift predicts an increase in equilibrium responses in relevant classes of games. Conversely, cooperative players do not change their visual analysis. Our results shed new light on theories of bounded rationality and on theories of social preferences.

In this article, we study the two membranes problem for operators given in terms of a mean value formula on a regular tree. We show existence of solutions under adequate conditions on the boundary data and the involved source terms. We also show that, when the boundary data are strictly separated, the coincidence set is separated from the boundary and thus it contains only a finite number of nodes.

Background: Congenital cardiac care involves multiple stakeholders including patients and their families, surgeons, cardiologists, anaesthetists, the wider multidisciplinary team, healthcare providers, and manufacturers, all of whom are involved in the decision-making process to some degree. Game theory utilises human behaviour to address the dynamics involved in a decision and what the best payoff is depending on the decision of other players. Aim: By presenting these interactions as a strategic game, this paper aims to provide a descriptive analysis on the utility and effectiveness of game theory in optimising decision-making in congenital cardiac care. Methodology: The comprehensive literature was searched to identify papers on game theory, and its application within surgery. Results: The analysis demonstrated that by utilising game theories, decision-making can be more aligned with patient-centric approaches, potentially improving clinical outcomes. Conclusion: Game theory is a useful tool for improving decision-making and may pave the way for more efficient and improved patient-centric approaches.

Probability-based estimates of the future suicide of psychiatric patients are of little assistance in clinical practice. This article proposes strategic management of the interaction between the clinician and the patient in the assessment of potentially suicidal patients, using principles derived from game theory, to achieve a therapeutic outcome that minimises the likelihood of suicide. Further developments in the applications of large language models could allow us to quantify the basis for clinical decisions in individual patients. Documenting the basis of those decisions would help to demonstrate an adequate standard of care in every interaction.

The frequency of left-handedness in humans is ~10% worldwide and slightly higher in males than females. Twin and family studies estimate the heritability of human handedness at around 25%. The low but substantial frequency of left-handedness has been suggested to imply negative frequency-dependent selection, e.g. owing to a ‘surprise’ advantage of left-handers in combat against opponents more used to fighting right-handers. Because such game-theoretic hypotheses involve social interaction, here we perform an analysis of the evolution of handedness based on kin-selection, which is understood to play a major role in the evolution of social behaviour generally. We show that: (1) relatedness modulates the balance of right-handedness vs. left-handedness, according to whether left-handedness is marginally selfish vs. marginally altruistic; (2) sex differences in relatedness to social partners may drive sex differences in handedness; (3) differential relatedness of parents and offspring may generate parent–offspring conflict and sexual conflict leading to the evolution of maternal and paternal genetic effects in relation to handedness; and (4) differential relatedness of maternal-origin vs. paternal-origin genes may generate intragenomic conflict leading to the evolution of parent-of-origin-specific gene effects – such as ‘genomic imprinting’ – and associated maladaptation.

Under closed-list proportional representation, a party's electoral list determines the order in which legislative seats are allocated to candidates. When candidates differ in their ability, parties face a trade-off between competence and incentives. Ranking candidates in decreasing order of competence ensures that elected politicians are most competent. Yet, party lists create incentives for candidates that may lead parties not to place their best candidates at the top of the list. We examine this trade-off in a game-theoretical model in which parties rank their candidates on a list, candidates choose their campaign effort, and the election is a team contest for multiple prizes. We analyze how the candidates’ objectives, voters’ attention and media coverage, incumbency, the number of parties competing in the election, and the electoral environment influence how parties rank candidates.

Conventional wisdom holds that open, collaborative, and transparent organizations are innovative. But some of the most radical innovations—satellites, lithium-iodine batteries, the internet—were conceived by small, secretive teams in national security agencies. Are these organizations more innovative because of their secrecy, or in spite of it? We study a principal–agent model of public-sector innovation. We give research teams a secret option and a public option during the initial testing and prototyping phase. Secrecy helps advance high-risk, high-reward projects through the early phase via a cost-passing mechanism. In open institutions, managers will not approve pilot research into high-risk, high-reward ideas for fear of political costs. Researchers exploit secrecy to conduct pilot research at a higher personal cost to generate evidence that their project is viable and win their manager's approval. Contrary to standard principal–agent findings, we show that researchers may exploit secrecy even if their preferences are perfectly aligned with their manager's, and that managers do not monitor researchers even if monitoring is costless and perfect. We illustrate our theory with two cases from the early Cold War: the CIA's attempt to master mind control (MKULTRA) and the origins of the reconnaissance satellite (CORONA). We contribute to the political application of principal–agent theory and studies of national security innovation, emerging technologies, democratic oversight, the Sino–American technology debate, and great power competition.

How do leaders select their top-level foreign policy appointees? Through a formal model of the domestic and intragovernmental politics surrounding an international crisis, I investigate the trade-offs shaping leaders’ appointment strategies. In the model, a leader selects a foreign policy appointee, anticipating how the appointment will affect the advice he receives in the crisis, the electorate's evaluation of his performance, and ultimately the policies that he and his foreign counterparts pursue as a consequence. The analysis uncovers a fundamental tension in the leader's ability to use appointments to advance his core political and policy objectives of deterring foreign aggression, obtaining accurate advice, and maximizing domestic approval: any appointment that advances one of these objectives invariably comes at the cost of another, and the leader's appointment strategy must balance across these trade-offs. Analyzing cross-national appointment patterns to the offices of ministers of defense and foreign affairs, I find descriptive evidence consistent with the model's predictions: leaders from dovish parties are more than twice as likely as leaders from hawkish parties to select cross-partisan and politically independent appointees, and such appointments are less likely for leaders of either party as they approach re-election.