Coalitions and payoffs in three‐person sequential games: Initial tests of two formal models

In this paper we develop two formal models predicting coalitions and payoffs among rank striving players in a sequential three‐person game. We test the models’ predictions with data from a laboratory study of eleven male triads. Each triad plays a sequence of games; in each game a two‐person coalition forms and divides the coalition's point value between the two coalition partners. Participants know that the sequence of games will end without warning at a randomly chosen time; at the sequence's end each player's monetary payoff is a linear function of the rank of his accumulated point score, relative to those of the other members of his triad. The complexity of this situation prevents players and analysts from representing it as a single game; thus they are unable to use n‐person game theory to identify optimal strategies. Consequently, we assume that players, unable to develop strategies that are demonstrably optimal in the long run, adopt certain bargaining heuristics and surrogate short run objectives.

The two models follow the same basic outline; they differ, however, in the planning horizon they assume players to use. Proceeding from a priori assumptions concerning each player's decision calculus and the bargaining process, the two models state the probability that each coalition forms and predict the point divisions in the winning coalition. The laboratory data provide consistently strong support for the predictions of both models.