  In resource contribution games, a class of non-cooperative games, the players
want to obtain a bundle of resources and are endowed with bags of bundles of
resources that they can make available into a common for all to enjoy.
Available resources can then be used towards their private goals. A player is
potentially satisfied with a profile of contributed resources when his bundle
could be extracted from the contributed resources. Resource contention occurs
when the players who are potentially satisfied, cannot actually all obtain
their bundle. The player's preferences are always single-minded (they consider
a profile good or they do not) and parsimonious (between two profiles that are
equally good, they prefer the profile where they contribute less). What makes a
profile of contributed resources good for a player depends on their attitude
towards resource contention. We study the problem of deciding whether an
outcome is a pure Nash equilibrium for three kinds of players' attitudes
towards resource contention: public contention-aversity, private
contention-aversity, and contention-tolerance. In particular, we demonstrate
that in the general case when the players are contention-averse, then the
problem is harder than when they are contention-tolerant. We then identify a
natural class of games where, in presence of contention-averse preferences, it
becomes tractable, and where there is always a Nash equilibrium.
