IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v5y2018icp22-31.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling the rational behavior of individuals on an e-commerce system

Author

Listed:
  • Aringhieri, Roberto
  • Duma, Davide
  • Fragnelli, Vito

Abstract

With the increasing popularity of e-commerce systems, commercial transactions are becoming more and more frequent. Such transactions are not direct but mediated, putting the buyer in a position of weakness with respect to the seller, especially in the case of a failure of a transaction. The literature showed that the reputation can play an important role to reduce the risks of the buyer in the current e-commerce environment. An online reputation management system (RMS) maintains the reputation, made of beliefs and/or opinions, that are generally held about someone or something, and it can guarantee the reliability of the transactions that take place in an e-commerce system. Despite of the fact that the basic element of a RMS – the interaction between the seller and the buyer – is a classical field of application of the Game Theory (GT) methodologies, the use of a GT approach in this context seems quite limited and this is probably due to its solution complexity. A way to deal with such a complexity is by exploiting the capability of the agent based simulation (ABS) approach. In this paper, we propose a hybrid GT and ABS model for the analysis of an e-commerce system in which a centralized reputation system is maintained by a trusted third party. We report an extensive quantitative analysis in order to validate the proposed model, and to evaluate the impact of a set of buyers’ and sellers’ policies on the behavior of the e-commerce system.

Suggested Citation

  • Aringhieri, Roberto & Duma, Davide & Fragnelli, Vito, 2018. "Modeling the rational behavior of individuals on an e-commerce system," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 22-31.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:5:y:2018:i:c:p:22-31
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2017.12.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716017302051
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2017.12.001?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. Roberto Aringhieri & Ernesto Damiani & Sabine De Capitani Di Vimercati & Stefano Paraboschi & Pierangelo Samarati, 2006. "Fuzzy techniques for trust and reputation management in anonymous peer‐to‐peer systems," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(4), pages 528-537, February.
    2. Nigel Gilbert & Pietro Terna, 2000. "How to build and use agent-based models in social science," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 1(1), pages 57-72, March.
    3. Shapley, Lloyd S. & Shubik, Martin, 1969. "On market games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 9-25, June.
    4. Dubey, Pradeep, 1982. "Price-Quantity Strategic Market Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 111-126, January.
    5. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    6. Theodoros Lappas & Gaurav Sabnis & Georgios Valkanas, 2016. "The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 940-961, December.
    7. Sorin, Sylvain, 1999. "Merging, Reputation, and Repeated Games with Incomplete Information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 29(1-2), pages 274-308, October.
    8. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tomasz Antczak & Rafal Weron & Jacek Zabawa, 2020. "Data-driven simulation modeling of the checkout process in supermarkets: Insights for decision support in retail operations," WORking papers in Management Science (WORMS) WORMS/20/16, Department of Operations Research and Business Intelligence, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.

    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. Giuseppe Attanasi & Pierpaolo Battigalli & Elena Manzoni, 2016. "Incomplete-Information Models of Guilt Aversion in the Trust Game," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 648-667, March.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Samuelson, Larry & Schmeidler, David, 2022. "Learning (to disagree?) in large worlds," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    3. Hervés-Beloso, Carlos & Moreno-García, Emma, 2009. "Walrasian analysis via two-player games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 220-233, January.
    4. Tobias Beck, 2020. "Lying and Mistrust in the Continuous Deception Game," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202030, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    5. 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.
    6. Andreas Hula & Iris Vilares & Terry Lohrenz & Peter Dayan & P Read Montague, 2018. "A model of risk and mental state shifts during social interaction," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. McCain, Roger A., 2008. "Cooperative games and cooperative organizations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2155-2167, December.
    8. Ekmekci, Mehmet & Gossner, Olivier & Wilson, Andrea, 2012. "Impermanent types and permanent reputations," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 162-178.
    9. Martin Shubik, 1984. "The Cooperative Form, the Value and the Allocation of Joint Costs and Benefits," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 706, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Gustavo J. Bobonis & Paul J. Gertler & Marco Gonzalez-Navarro & Simeon Nichter, 2022. "Vulnerability and Clientelism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(11), pages 3627-3659, November.
    11. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    12. Maxime Menuet & Petros G. Sekeris, 2021. "Overconfidence and conflict," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1483-1499, October.
    13. Robert Jiro Netzer & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Intercultural trust. An experiment in Austria and Japan," Working Papers 2009-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    14. Andrés Perea & Elias Tsakas, 2019. "Limited focus in dynamic games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(2), pages 571-607, June.
    15. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    16. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    17. Pierre Koning & J. Vyrastekova & S. Onderstal, 2006. "Team incentives in public organisations; an experimental study," CPB Discussion Paper 60, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    18. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    19. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    20. Matteo Richiardi, 2003. "The Promises and Perils of Agent-Based Computational Economics," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 29, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.

    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:oprepe:v:5:y:2018:i:c:p:22-31. 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.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    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.