Abstract
24 subjects were required to make Anticipation type decisions in a simulated tactical situation. On each trial, the tactical situation required a choice between two targets which could be of the same or different value. The targets also varied from trial to trial with regard to their vulnerability to attack. The subjects participated in pairs—one as an attacker, the other as defender. Despite sizable discrepancies in the mix of strategies employed in particular cases, the patterns of the subjects' responses were similar to those dictated by game theoretic considerations. In general the attackers were better able to predict their opponents' behavior. However, neither group was able to capitalize on the non-optimum behavior of their opponents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.