The lies of individuals holding positions of influence in society can result in significant consequences for the distribution of resources. A relationship between lying behavior and social preferences has often been proposed in explaining patterns of lying aversion. However, studies have seldom directly examined the relationship between different types of social preferences and the corresponding lying behaviors. We assess individuals’ preferences over social allocations along with their lying tendencies in the analogous scenarios, using a novel multinomial version of a ‘mind cheating game’, which allows different degrees of lying and is independent of social image and reputation concerns. Our study allows us to observe how preferences over fairness and efficiency are associated with the willingness to lie for one’s self and others. Selfish and spiteful lies are prevalent among those with strong spiteful preferences in the allocation task, while those subjects with efficiency-oriented preferences tend to tell efficient lies on behalf of others. However, among those with a strong preference for fairness in allocations with own-payoff consequence, lying on behalf of fairness concerns is less apparent. Altogether, the empirical patterns suggest that individuals with a strong preference for efficiency in such scenarios are more likely to lie for fairness concerns, while those with a strong fairness preference may be more likely to lie out of self-interest.
{"title":"Lying for Efficiency or Fairness?","authors":"J. Lien, Jinglan Zhang, Jie Zheng","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3584066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3584066","url":null,"abstract":"The lies of individuals holding positions of influence in society can result in significant consequences for the distribution of resources. A relationship between lying behavior and social preferences has often been proposed in explaining patterns of lying aversion. However, studies have seldom directly examined the relationship between different types of social preferences and the corresponding lying behaviors. We assess individuals’ preferences over social allocations along with their lying tendencies in the analogous scenarios, using a novel multinomial version of a ‘mind cheating game’, which allows different degrees of lying and is independent of social image and reputation concerns. Our study allows us to observe how preferences over fairness and efficiency are associated with the willingness to lie for one’s self and others. Selfish and spiteful lies are prevalent among those with strong spiteful preferences in the allocation task, while those subjects with efficiency-oriented preferences tend to tell efficient lies on behalf of others. However, among those with a strong preference for fairness in allocations with own-payoff consequence, lying on behalf of fairness concerns is less apparent. Altogether, the empirical patterns suggest that individuals with a strong preference for efficiency in such scenarios are more likely to lie for fairness concerns, while those with a strong fairness preference may be more likely to lie out of self-interest.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134356563","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study aims to link two related social psychology concepts, self-awareness and politeness, with human helping behavior and demonstrate it from the perspective of psychological game theory. By establishing a game theory model, and adding politeness and self-awareness as influencing factors, the Bayesian Nash equilibrium clarified people's help-seeking and help-giving behavior. As a result, we explained the relationship between politeness, self-awareness, and the willingness of the help seekers, as well as the helpers, and we can thus understand why some people do not seek help or give help. Specifically, on the one hand, from the perspective of help seekers, we found that people with a high level of self-awareness and politeness tend not to ask others for help. On the other hand, from the perspective of helpers, we found that people with a high level of self-awareness and politeness tend to help others. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of Bayesian Nash equilibrium based on psychological game theory in studying human help-seeking and help-giving behavior.
{"title":"Game Theory Analysis of Self-Awareness and Politeness","authors":"Huanhuan Guo, Biao Gao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3551870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551870","url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to link two related social psychology concepts, self-awareness and politeness, with human helping behavior and demonstrate it from the perspective of psychological game theory. By establishing a game theory model, and adding politeness and self-awareness as influencing factors, the Bayesian Nash equilibrium clarified people's help-seeking and help-giving behavior. As a result, we explained the relationship between politeness, self-awareness, and the willingness of the help seekers, as well as the helpers, and we can thus understand why some people do not seek help or give help. Specifically, on the one hand, from the perspective of help seekers, we found that people with a high level of self-awareness and politeness tend not to ask others for help. On the other hand, from the perspective of helpers, we found that people with a high level of self-awareness and politeness tend to help others. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of Bayesian Nash equilibrium based on psychological game theory in studying human help-seeking and help-giving behavior.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129468432","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Following Balbuzanov and Kotowski (2019a), we study the exchange of indivisible objects among agents with unit demand, where initially each object is either privately owned or is co-owned by multiple agents. We propose a new notion of core called the effective core for these problems to address the inadequacies of conventional notions of core. We say that a coalition effectively blocks an assignment if it weakly blocks it–as in the definition of the strong core–and the blocking is credible in the sense that no agent in the coalition free-rides on other agents in it. We show that the effective core is a nonempty subset of the weak core and a superset of the strong core, and all assignments in it are Pareto efficient. We also propose an algorithm to find assignments in it. Lastly, we make detailed comparison between the effective core and Balbuzanov and Kotowski’s exclusion core.
{"title":"On the Core of Markets with Co-ownerships and Indivisibilities","authors":"Xiangzhuang Sun, Qianfeng Tang, Mingjun Xiao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3540210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3540210","url":null,"abstract":"Following Balbuzanov and Kotowski (2019a), we study the exchange of indivisible objects among agents with unit demand, where initially each object is either privately owned or is co-owned by multiple agents. We propose a new notion of core called the effective core for these problems to address the inadequacies of conventional notions of core. We say that a coalition effectively blocks an assignment if it weakly blocks it–as in the definition of the strong core–and the blocking is credible in the sense that no agent in the coalition free-rides on other agents in it. We show that the effective core is a nonempty subset of the weak core and a superset of the strong core, and all assignments in it are Pareto efficient. We also propose an algorithm to find assignments in it. Lastly, we make detailed comparison between the effective core and Balbuzanov and Kotowski’s exclusion core.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122107973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two agents sincerely exchange their best guesses about the state of the world infinitely many times. When each agent places a small positive probability on the event that her opponent is of some finite level of reasoning and initial disagreement is large enough (that is, private signals are strong and different), permanent and large disagreement is possible even for infinitely sophisticated agents.
{"title":"Disagreement Under Almost Common Knowledge of Rationality","authors":"Emiliano Catonini, T. Mayskaya","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3530563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3530563","url":null,"abstract":"Two agents sincerely exchange their best guesses about the state of the world infinitely many times. When each agent places a small positive probability on the event that her opponent is of some finite level of reasoning and initial disagreement is large enough (that is, private signals are strong and different), permanent and large disagreement is possible even for infinitely sophisticated agents.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130536910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On-demand service platforms compete for both workers and customers, forming a two-sided competition. In this paper, we study the game between two platforms implied by such a two-sided competition and examine how the characteristics of the embedded workers-customers subgame affect outcomes in equilibrium. Specifically, we consider two subgame settings: (i) workers and customers move sequentially and (ii) workers and customers move simultaneously. We find that these two settings yield different subgame outcomes. In the first setting, given any platform strategy profile, there is no subgame equilibrium such that both platforms have a positive market share. In the simultaneous-move setting, such subgame equilibria can exist, though not unique. In the presence of multiple equilibria, we show that under some refinement rules both settings (the sequential and simultaneous subgames) yield the same unique pure-strategy equilibrium. We discuss how these results shed light on the competitive dynamics of on-demand service platforms in practice.
{"title":"Two-Sided Competition Between On-Demand Service Platforms","authors":"Shining Wu, Shihong Xiao, S. Benjaafar","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3525971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3525971","url":null,"abstract":"On-demand service platforms compete for both workers and customers, forming a two-sided competition. In this paper, we study the game between two platforms implied by such a two-sided competition and examine how the characteristics of the embedded workers-customers subgame affect outcomes in equilibrium. Specifically, we consider two subgame settings: (i) workers and customers move sequentially and (ii) workers and customers move simultaneously. We find that these two settings yield different subgame outcomes. In the first setting, given any platform strategy profile, there is no subgame equilibrium such that both platforms have a positive market share. In the simultaneous-move setting, such subgame equilibria can exist, though not unique. In the presence of multiple equilibria, we show that under some refinement rules both settings (the sequential and simultaneous subgames) yield the same unique pure-strategy equilibrium. We discuss how these results shed light on the competitive dynamics of on-demand service platforms in practice.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129989593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper presents and studies a new concept of coalition domination for incomplete markets. It was elaborated applying a contractual approach and based on the notion of fuzzy contractual allocation, see Marakulin (2011, 2013). Core allocations are implemented by the net trades (webs of contracts) having the following kind of stability. There is no coalition which is able to dominate allocation doing so: (i) in the present it breaks off all contracts in all states of nature and conclude a family of ineffective contracts in the future and a (profitable) new contract in the present or (ii) in future, in each given state of the world, contracts are broken partially and asymmetrically, after that a new contract is concluded. Requirement (i) can be treated as the impossibility to compensate for the signing of ineffective contracts in the future by concluding a new contract in the present. Also, GEI-equilibrium is described as (ii) applied to all states of the world. This core converts into a classical one when the market turns complete. Under perfect competition conditions, core allocations are GEI-equilibria. These properties prove the validity of the suggested core.
{"title":"Stable Contractual Allocations, Equilibria and Core in Incomplete Markets","authors":"V. Marakulin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3529223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3529223","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents and studies a new concept of coalition domination for incomplete markets. It was elaborated applying a contractual approach and based on the notion of fuzzy contractual allocation, see Marakulin (2011, 2013). Core allocations are implemented by the net trades (webs of contracts) having the following kind of stability. There is no coalition which is able to dominate allocation doing so: (i) in the present it breaks off all contracts in all states of nature and conclude a family of ineffective contracts in the future and a (profitable) new contract in the present or (ii) in future, in each given state of the world, contracts are broken partially and asymmetrically, after that a new contract is concluded. Requirement (i) can be treated as the impossibility to compensate for the signing of ineffective contracts in the future by concluding a new contract in the present. Also, GEI-equilibrium is described as (ii) applied to all states of the world. This core converts into a classical one when the market turns complete. Under perfect competition conditions, core allocations are GEI-equilibria. These properties prove the validity of the suggested core.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114734375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We investigate menu mechanisms: dynamic mechanisms where at each history, an agent selects from a menu of his possible assignments. We consider both ex-post implementation and full implementation, for both subgame perfection and a strengthening of dominance that covers off-path histories, and provide conditions under which menu mechanisms provide these implementations of rules. In comparison to direct mechanisms, menu mechanisms offer better privacy to participants; we formalize this with a novel notion of mechanism informativeness. Our results cover a variety of environments, including elections, marriage, college admissions, auctions, labor markets, matching with contracts, and object allocation.
{"title":"Menu Mechanisms","authors":"Andrew Mackenzie, Yu Zhou","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3521257","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3521257","url":null,"abstract":"We investigate menu mechanisms: dynamic mechanisms where at each history, an agent selects from a menu of his possible assignments. We consider both ex-post implementation and full implementation, for both subgame perfection and a strengthening of dominance that covers off-path histories, and provide conditions under which menu mechanisms provide these implementations of rules. In comparison to direct mechanisms, menu mechanisms offer better privacy to participants; we formalize this with a novel notion of mechanism informativeness. Our results cover a variety of environments, including elections, marriage, college admissions, auctions, labor markets, matching with contracts, and object allocation.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130028721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I investigate if, how, and why the effect of a contribution rule in a public goods game depends on how it is implemented: endogenously chosen or externally imposed. The rule prescribes full contributions to the public good backed by a nondeterrent sanction for those who do not comply. My experimental design allows me to disentangle to what extent the effect of the contribution rule under democracy is driven by self-selection of treatments, information transmitted via the outcome of the referendum, and democracy per se. In case treatments are endogenously chosen via a democratic decision-making process, the contribution rule significantly increases contributions to the public good. However, democratic participation does not affect participants’ contribution behavior directly, after controlling for self-selection of treatments and the information transmitted by voting.
{"title":"Democracy and Compliance in Public Goods Games","authors":"Carlo Gallier","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3057268","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3057268","url":null,"abstract":"I investigate if, how, and why the effect of a contribution rule in a public goods game depends on how it is implemented: endogenously chosen or externally imposed. The rule prescribes full contributions to the public good backed by a nondeterrent sanction for those who do not comply. My experimental design allows me to disentangle to what extent the effect of the contribution rule under democracy is driven by self-selection of treatments, information transmitted via the outcome of the \u0000referendum, and democracy per se. In case treatments are endogenously chosen via a democratic decision-making process, the contribution rule significantly increases contributions to the public good. However, democratic participation does not affect participants’ contribution behavior directly, after controlling for self-selection of treatments and the information transmitted by voting.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114962758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Retailer differentiation exists in most industries and gives manufacturers an incentive to contract with different retailers to penetrate a market. This paper analyzes the impact of this penetration effect on vertical contract exclusivity in an oligopolistic model with differentiated retailers. In the model, manufacturers endogenously choose contract types and negotiate with retailers on wholesale prices. We show that, when the penetration effect is sufficiently strong, non-exclusive contracts lead to higher profits for the manufacturers and retailers. The model is applied to an example with logit demand, which shows that both manufacturers choosing the non-exclusive contracts is a dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium even though they may both be better off under exclusive contracts when the products have high quality or low costs.
{"title":"Non-Exclusive Dealing with Retailer Differentiation and Market Penetration","authors":"Shengyu Li, Rong Luo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3521190","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3521190","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Retailer differentiation exists in most industries and gives manufacturers an incentive to contract with different retailers to penetrate a market. This paper analyzes the impact of this penetration effect on vertical contract exclusivity in an oligopolistic model with differentiated retailers. In the model, manufacturers endogenously choose contract types and negotiate with retailers on wholesale prices. We show that, when the penetration effect is sufficiently strong, non-exclusive contracts lead to higher profits for the manufacturers and retailers. The model is applied to an example with logit demand, which shows that both manufacturers choosing the non-exclusive contracts is a dominant-strategy Nash equilibrium even though they may both be better off under exclusive contracts when the products have high quality or low costs.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128018391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
e study whether maximum efficiency can be obtained in a stochastic learning model where players can actively form links with a limited number of peers to play a size-dependent minimum-effort game. The long-run equilibrium is contingent on the linking constraint and the marginal payoff from coordination. A restrictive linking constraint or a large marginal payoff from coordinating on the maximum effort promotes efficient coordination. Even if these conditions are not satisfied, players need not to be trapped in the least-efficient convention. With the discretion to choose partners, a large population of potential participants will facilitate the emergence of maximum efficiency.
{"title":"Coordination with Constrained Network Formation","authors":"Zhiwei Cui, Feihong Shi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3489510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3489510","url":null,"abstract":"e study whether maximum efficiency can be obtained in a stochastic learning model where players can actively form links with a limited number of peers to play a size-dependent minimum-effort game. The long-run equilibrium is contingent on the linking constraint and the marginal payoff from coordination. A restrictive linking constraint or a large marginal payoff from coordinating on the maximum effort promotes efficient coordination. Even if these conditions are not satisfied, players need not to be trapped in the least-efficient convention. With the discretion to choose partners, a large population of potential participants will facilitate the emergence of maximum efficiency.","PeriodicalId":393761,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Other Game Theory & Bargaining Theory (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123520356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：