Experimental Economics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 27–49 | Cite as

Third-party manipulation of conflict: an experiment

Original Paper


We design a laboratory experiment in which an interested third party endowed with private information sends a public message to two conflicting players, who then make their choices. We find that third-party communication is not strategic. Nevertheless, a hawkish message by a third party makes hawkish behavior more likely while a dovish message makes it less likely. Moreover, how subjects respond to the message is largely unaffected by the third party’s incentives. We argue that our results are consistent with a focal point interpretation in the spirit of Schelling.


Third-party communication Experiment Conflict game 

JEL Classification

C72 C92 D82 

Supplementary material

10683_2017_9523_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (3 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 3108 KB)


  1. Baliga, S., & Sjöström, T. (2012). The strategy of manipulating conflict. The American Economic Review, 102(6), 2897–2922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bland, J., & Nikiforakis, N. (2015). Coordination with third-party externalities. European Economic Review, 80, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blume, A., DeJong, D. V., Kim, Y. G., & Sprinkle, G. B. (2001). Evolution of communication with partial common interest. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 79–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandts, J., & MacLeod, W. B. (1995). Equilibrium selection in experimental games with recommended play. Games and Economic Behavior, 11(1), 36–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., & Verhoogen, E. (2003). Playing both roles in the trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51(2), 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cason, T. N., & Sharma, T. (2007). Recommended play and correlated equilibria: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charness, G. (2000). Self-serving cheap talk: A test of Aumann’s conjecture. Games and Economic Behavior, 33, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 177, 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, D., & Kagel, J. H. (2003). Lessons learned: Generalizing learning across games. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galbiati, R., & Vertova, P. (2008). Obligations and cooperative behaviour in public good games. Games and Economic Behavior, 64(1), 146–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levine, D. K. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1(3), 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mamdani, M. (2014). When victims become killers: Colonialism, nativism, and the genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. McAdams, R. H., & Nadler, J. (2005). Testing the focal point theory of legal compliance: The effect of third-party expression in an experimental hawk/dove game. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rankin, F. W., Van Huyck, J. B., & Battalio, R. C. (2000). Strategic similarity and emergent conventions: Evidence from similar stag hunt games. Games and Economic Behavior, 32(2), 315–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rick, S., & Weber, R. A. (2010). Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback. Games and Economic Behavior, 68, 716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schelling, T. C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Stewart, N. (1951). Divide and rule: British policy in indian history. Science and Society, 15(1), 49–57.Google Scholar
  20. Van Huyck, J. B., Gillette, A. B., & Battalio, R. C. (1992). Credible assignments in coordination games. Games and Economic Behavior, 4(4), 606–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITAMMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.University of SurreyGuildfordEngland

Personalised recommendations