IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v289y2021i1p364-380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limited-trust equilibria

Author

Listed:
  • Murray, Timothy
  • Garg, Jugal
  • Nagi, Rakesh

Abstract

We propose and analyze a new type of equilibrium, in which limited-trust exists between players with long-term interactions. We assume heterogeneous interactions: players will engage in several games over an undetermined period of time with payoffs for each game drawn from a distribution. As such, players may not engage in the same game more than once. We define a Limited-Trust equilibrium to address these heterogeneous games, show its existence in all finite simultaneous games, and analyze it in general and in several common classes of games. We provide several interpretations of this equilibrium in leader-follower games. We then numerically compare the social utility generated from these equilibria in both simultaneous and leader-follower games to that generated by Nash and Stackelberg equilibria in the same games: when players display a similar level of trust δ, each sees an average gain of approximately δ in its utility each game over what it would achieve in traditional competitive/rational games, meaning for each game a player loses δ, there is another game it gains 3δ. Thus while players appear to play “non-rationally” by giving something up, they actually gain more and are each able to come out ahead of what they would have received if playing rationally as in a Nash equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray, Timothy & Garg, Jugal & Nagi, Rakesh, 2021. "Limited-trust equilibria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 364-380.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:289:y:2021:i:1:p:364-380
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.07.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221720306202
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.07.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim Engle-Warnick & Robert Slonim, 2006. "Inferring repeated-game strategies from actions: evidence from trust game experiments," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 28(3), pages 603-632, August.
    2. Morreale, Azzurra & Mittone, Luigi & Lo Nigro, Giovanna, 2019. "Risky choices in strategic environments: An experimental investigation of a real options game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(1), pages 143-158.
    3. Anderhub, Vital & Engelmann, Dirk & Guth, Werner, 2002. "An experimental study of the repeated trust game with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 197-216, June.
    4. Govindan, Srihari & Wilson, Robert, 2003. "A global Newton method to compute Nash equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 65-86, May.
    5. Drew Fudenberg & Eric Maskin, 2008. "The Folk Theorem In Repeated Games With Discounting Or With Incomplete Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 11, pages 209-230, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    6. Niederhoff, Julie A. & Kouvelis, Panos, 2016. "Generous, spiteful, or profit maximizing suppliers in the wholesale price contract: A behavioral study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(2), pages 372-382.
    7. Ledyard, John O., "undated". "Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research," Working Papers 861, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
    8. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1979. "Equilibrium in supergames with the overtaking criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-9, August.
    9. Engle-Warnick, J. & Slonim, Robert L., 2006. "Learning to trust in indefinitely repeated games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 95-114, January.
    10. C. E. Lemke, 1965. "Bimatrix Equilibrium Points and Mathematical Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(7), pages 681-689, May.
    11. Chen, Shuo-Pei & Wu, Wann-Yih, 2010. "A systematic procedure to evaluate an automobile manufacturer-distributor partnership," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 687-698, September.
    12. Du, Shaofu & Nie, Tengfei & Chu, Chengbin & Yu, Yugang, 2014. "Reciprocal supply chain with intention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 389-402.
    13. Messinger, Paul R., 2016. "The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: An experimental studyAuthor-Name: Choi, Sungchul," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 798-813.
    14. Leopold-Wildburger, Ulrike & Schuetze, Joerg H. & Lafer, Alois, 2002. "McCockerel measuring individual punishment and reciprocity in a simple value-laden dilemma game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(2), pages 241-248, July.
    15. Engle-Warnick, Jim & Slonim, Robert L., 2004. "The evolution of strategies in a repeated trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 553-573, December.
    16. Giovanna Lo Nigro & Azzurra Morreale & Serena Robba & Paolo Roma, 2013. "Biopharmaceutical Alliances And Competition: A Real Options Games Approach," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1-22.
    17. Benoit, Jean-Pierre & Krishna, Vijay, 1985. "Finitely Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(4), pages 905-922, July.
    18. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    2. Kartal, Melis & Müller, Wieland & Tremewan, James, 2021. "Building trust: The costs and benefits of gradualism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 258-275.
    3. Brown, M. & Serra Garcia, M., 2010. "Relational Contracting Under the Threat of Expropriation – Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper 2010-85, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    4. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2017. "Trust, but verify? Monitoring, inspection costs, and opportunism under limited observability," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 320-330.
    5. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2016. "Does strategic kindness crowd out prosocial behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 1-11.
    6. Sloof, Randolph & Sonnemans, Joep, 2011. "The interaction between explicit and relational incentives: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 573-594.
    7. repec:tiu:tiucen:200922 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Ernesto Reuben & Sigrid Suetens, 2012. "Revisiting strategic versus non-strategic cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-43, March.
    9. Kenju Akai & Robert J. Netzer, 2009. "Trust and Reciprocity among International Groups: Experimental Evidence from Austria and Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 0737r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Aug 2010.
    10. Ewa Zawojska, 2014. "The role of dynamics for trust development. An experimental study," Ekonomia journal, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw, vol. 38.
    11. Rahul Mehrotra & Vincent Somville & Lore vandewalle, 2016. "Increasing trust in the bank to enhance savings: Experimental evidence from India," CMI Working Papers 2, CMI (Chr. Michelsen Institute), Bergen, Norway.
    12. Shu-Heng Chen & Bin-Tzong Chie & Tong Zhang, 2015. "Network-Based Trust Games: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(3), pages 1-5.
    13. Johnsen, Åshild A & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "You always meet twice: An experiment on intrinsic versus instrumental reciprocity," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2014/2, University of Stavanger.
    14. Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2007. "The role of players’ identification in the population on the trusting and the trustworthy behavior an experimental investigation," Working Papers 07-06, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2007.
    15. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.
    16. Sarkar, Sumit, 2019. "Gratitude, conscience, and reciprocity: Models of supplier motivation when quality is non-contractible," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 633-642.
    17. repec:tiu:tiucen:200833 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Lisa R. Anderson & Jennifer M. Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Inequality and Relative Deprivation on Trusting Behavior," Working Papers 14, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    19. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    20. Greiner, Ben & Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2012. "The dynamic interplay of inequality and trust—An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 355-365.
    21. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Stuart Mestelman & S. M. Khalid Nainar & Mohamed Shehata, 2012. "Trust and Reciprocity, Empowerment and Transparency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2012-12, McMaster University.
    22. Pedro Dal Bo & Guillaume R. Frochette, 2011. "The Evolution of Cooperation in Infinitely Repeated Games: Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(1), pages 411-429, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:289:y:2021:i:1:p:364-380. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.