IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2303.01921.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trusting: Alone and together

Author

Listed:
  • Benedikt V. Meylahn
  • Arnoud V. den Boer
  • Michel Mandjes

Abstract

We study the problem of an agent continuously faced with the decision of placing or not placing trust in an institution. The agent makes use of Bayesian learning in order to estimate the institution's true trustworthiness and makes the decision to place trust based on myopic rationality. Using elements from random walk theory, we explicitly derive the probability that such an agent ceases placing trust at some point in the relationship, as well as the expected time spent placing trust conditioned on their discontinuation thereof. We then continue by modelling two truster agents, each in their own relationship to the institution. We consider two natural models of communication between them. In the first (``observable rewards'') agents disclose their experiences with the institution with one another, while in the second (``observable actions'') agents merely witness the actions of their neighbour, i.e., placing or not placing trust. Under the same assumptions as in the single agent case, we describe the evolution of the beliefs of agents under these two different communication models. Both the probability of ceasing to place trust and the expected time in the system elude explicit expressions, despite there being only two agents. We therefore conduct a simulation study in order to compare the effect of the different kinds of communication on the trust dynamics. We find that a pair of agents in both communication models has a greater chance of learning the true trustworthiness of an institution than a single agent. Communication between agents promotes the formation of long term trust with a trustworthy institution as well as the timely exit from a trust relationship with an untrustworthy institution. Contrary to what one might expect, we find that having less information (observing each other's actions instead of experiences) can sometimes be beneficial to the agents.

Suggested Citation

  • Benedikt V. Meylahn & Arnoud V. den Boer & Michel Mandjes, 2023. "Trusting: Alone and together," Papers 2303.01921, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2303.01921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.01921
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Venkatesh Bala & Sanjeev Goyal, 1998. "Learning from Neighbours," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(3), pages 595-621.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Munther A. Dahleh & Ilan Lobel & Asuman Ozdaglar, 2011. "Bayesian Learning in Social Networks," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(4), pages 1201-1236.
    3. Parikh, Rohit & Krasucki, Paul, 1990. "Communication, consensus, and knowledge," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 178-189, October.
    4. Nathalie Bajos & Alexis Spire & Léna Silberzan & Antoine Sireyjol & Florence Jusot & Laurence Meyer & Jeanna-Eve Franck & Josiane Warszawski, 2022. "When Lack of Trust in the Government and in Scientists Reinforces Social Inequalities in Vaccination Against COVID-19," Post-Print hal-03959619, HAL.
    5. Buskens, Vincent, 2003. "Trust in triads: effects of exit, control, and learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 235-252, February.
    6. Jussi Keppo & Lones Smith & Dmitry Davydov, 2008. "Optimal Electoral Timing: Exercise Wisely and You May Live Longer -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(2), pages 597-628.
    7. Fu, Wentao & Le Riche, Antoine, 2021. "Endogenous growth model with Bayesian learning and technology selection," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 58-71.
    8. Pooya Molavi & Alireza Tahbaz‐Salehi & Ali Jadbabaie, 2018. "A Theory of Non‐Bayesian Social Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 445-490, 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. Li, Wei & Tan, Xu, 2021. "Cognitively-constrained learning from neighbors," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 32-54.
    2. Foerster, Manuel, 2019. "Dynamics of strategic information transmission in social networks," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), January.
    3. Dasaratha, Krishna & He, Kevin, 2020. "Network structure and naive sequential learning," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(2), May.
    4. Wanying Huang & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2021. "Learning in Repeated Interactions on Networks," Papers 2112.14265, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    5. Matan Harel & Elchanan Mossel & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2021. "Rational Groupthink," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(1), pages 621-668.
      • Matan Harel & Elchanan Mossel & Philipp Strack & Omer Tamuz, 2014. "Rational Groupthink," Papers 1412.7172, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2020.
    6. Ding, Huihui & Pivato, Marcus, 2021. "Deliberation and epistemic democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 138-167.
    7. Marcos Ross Fernandes, 2023. "Confirmation Bias in Social Networks," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2023_02, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    8. Elchanan Mossel & Allan Sly & Omer Tamuz, 2015. "Strategic Learning and the Topology of Social Networks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(5), pages 1755-1794, September.
    9. Marcos R. Fernandes, 2022. "Confirmation Bias in Social Networks," Papers 2207.12594, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2023.
    10. Emilien Macault, 2022. "Stochastic Consensus and the Shadow of Doubt," Papers 2201.12100, arXiv.org.
    11. Azomahou, T. & Opolot, D., 2014. "Beliefs dynamics in communication networks," MERIT Working Papers 2014-034, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    12. Arieli, Itai & Babichenko, Yakov & Shlomov, Segev, 2021. "Virtually additive learning," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    13. Sebastiano Della Lena, 2019. "Non-Bayesian Social Learning and the Spread of Misinformation in Networks," Working Papers 2019:09, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    14. Buechel, Berno & Hellmann, Tim & Klößner, Stefan, 2015. "Opinion dynamics and wisdom under conformity," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 240-257.
    15. Rusinowska, Agnieszka & Taalaibekova, Akylai, 2019. "Opinion formation and targeting when persuaders have extreme and centrist opinions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 9-27.
    16. Yann Algan & Quoc-Anh Do & Nicolò Dalvit & Alexis Le Chapelain & Yves Zenou, 2015. "How Social Networks Shape Our Beliefs: A Natural Experiment among Future French Politicians," Working Papers hal-03459820, HAL.
    17. Cao, GangCheng & Fang, Debin & Wang, Pengyu, 2021. "The impacts of social learning on a real-time pricing scheme in the electricity market," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    18. Corazzini, Luca & Pavesi, Filippo & Petrovich, Beatrice & Stanca, Luca, 2012. "Influential listeners: An experiment on persuasion bias in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1276-1288.
    19. Jadbabaie, Ali & Molavi, Pooya & Sandroni, Alvaro & Tahbaz-Salehi, Alireza, 2012. "Non-Bayesian social learning," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 210-225.
    20. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/78vacv4udu92eq3fec89svm9uv is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Ana Babus & Péter Kondor, 2018. "Trading and Information Diffusion in Over‐the‐Counter Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1727-1769, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2303.01921. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.