IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v21y2015i4d10.1007_s10588-015-9193-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

TANDEM: a trust-based agent framework for networked decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Sibel Adalı

    (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute)

  • Kevin Chan

    (U.S. Army Research Laboratory (USARL))

  • Jin-Hee Cho

    (U.S. Army Research Laboratory (USARL))

Abstract

Team performance in networked decision making environments has been studied from many different perspectives. However, there are still many unanswered problems when it comes to understanding and quantifying the impact of individual differences of team players, their interpersonal relationships, team connectivity and complex interactions between these factors. In this paper, we present an agent framework that allows the manipulation of all these factors in a principled way. The agents in this framework can be connected through any network structure and can have different characteristics modeled in two dimensions of willingness and competence, which mirror beliefs for each other. Both nodes and links in the network can have differing capacity, modeled by agents’ ability to accomplish tasks and their trust for each other. The trust can change as a function of network activity, leading to dynamic scenarios. The framework is implemented as an open source simulation package and is fully extensible. With the help of an information sharing scenario, we conduct a sensitivity analysis and demonstrate the impact of all components of the framework on various network outcomes. In particular, we illustrate that the model provides the ability to study many different trade-offs in team performance and interaction between different parameters.

Suggested Citation

  • Sibel Adalı & Kevin Chan & Jin-Hee Cho, 2015. "TANDEM: a trust-based agent framework for networked decision making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 461-490, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:21:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-015-9193-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-015-9193-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-015-9193-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-015-9193-x?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. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.
    2. Siddharth Suri & Duncan J Watts, 2011. "Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    2. Floriana Gargiulo & José J Ramasco, 2012. "Influence of Opinion Dynamics on the Evolution of Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-7, November.
    3. Giorgia Ponsi & Maria Serena Panasiti & Salvatore Maria Aglioti & Marco Tullio Liuzza, 2017. "Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Babajide Oyewo & Venancio Tauringana & Babajide Moses Omikunle & Olusola Owoyele, 2022. "The global management accounting principles (GMAP) and the relationship between organizational design elements," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 35(5), pages 637-659, March.
    5. Yang, Zhiyong & Janakiraman, Narayan & Hossain, Mehdi T. & Grisaffe, Douglas B., 2020. "Differential effects of pay-it-forward and direct-reciprocity on prosocial behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 400-408.
    6. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    7. Takahiro Ezaki & Naoki Masuda, 2017. "Reinforcement learning account of network reciprocity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-8, December.
    8. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    9. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    10. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    11. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    12. Vanessa Cedeno-Mieles & Zhihao Hu & Yihui Ren & Xinwei Deng & Noshir Contractor & Saliya Ekanayake & Joshua M Epstein & Brian J Goode & Gizem Korkmaz & Chris J Kuhlman & Dustin Machi & Michael Macy & , 2020. "Data analysis and modeling pipelines for controlled networked social science experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-58, November.
    13. Juha‐Antti Lamberg & Mirva Peltoniemi, 2020. "The nanoeconomics of firm‐level decision‐making and industry evolution: Evidence from 200 years of paper and pulp making," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 499-529, March.
    14. Ola Andersson & Jim Ingebretsen Carlson & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Differences Attract: An Experimental Study of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(639), pages 2671-2692.
    15. Adam Maxwell Sparks & Daniel M T Fessler & Colin Holbrook, 2019. "Elevation, an emotion for prosocial contagion, is experienced more strongly by those with greater expectations of the cooperativeness of others," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-29, December.
    16. Jelena Grujić & Torsten Röhl & Dirk Semmann & Manfred Milinski & Arne Traulsen, 2012. "Consistent Strategy Updating in Spatial and Non-Spatial Behavioral Experiments Does Not Promote Cooperation in Social Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-8, November.
    17. Lorenzo Coviello & Massimo Franceschetti & Mathew D McCubbins & Ramamohan Paturi & Andrea Vattani, 2012. "Human Matching Behavior in Social Networks: An Algorithmic Perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-9, August.
    18. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    19. Hans-Theo Normann & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2014. "Do short-term laboratory experiments provide valid descriptions of long-term economic interactions? A study of Cournot markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(3), pages 371-390, September.
    20. Milena Tsvetkova & Claudia Wagner & Andrew Mao, 2018. "The emergence of inequality in social groups: Network structure and institutions affect the distribution of earnings in cooperation games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.

    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:spr:comaot:v:21:y:2015:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-015-9193-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.