Theory and Decision最新文献

Coordinated punishment occurs when punishment requires a specific number of punishers to be effective, otherwise, no damage will be inflicted on the target. While societies often rely on this punishment device, its benefits are unclear compared to uncoordinated punishment, where punishment decisions are substitutes. In this paper, we compare the efficacy of coordinated and uncoordinated punishment in a team investment game with two investors and one allocator. Our findings indicate that coordinated punishment results in higher levels of cooperation and reciprocity, as measured by the levels of joint investment and the return by allocators. Importantly, this does not translate into higher payoffs: investors use punishment more frequently when this is coordinated, which destroys the efficiency gains generated by the highest investment. In fact, our results suggest that the highest level of efficiency would be achieved if investors were not allowed to punish.

We theoretically and experimentally examine the effect of noise variance and prize value on effort in individual contests and in three types of group contests: perfect-substitutes, best-shot, and weakest-link. For all contest types, we use the rank-order contest model, where effort and random noise determine performance. The theoretical model for individual contests predicts that effort will increase with prize value and decrease with noise variance. As expected, all subjects in our experiment decrease their efforts as noise variance rises, regardless of the value of the prize. Prize value, however, has no effect on effort. In group contests, each group consists of two players with different prize values. The player for whom the prize value is higher is referred to as a strong player; the other is referred to as a weak player. The theoretical model also predicts that exerted positive efforts will decrease with noise variance in all group contests. Our experimental results show that in perfect-substitutes and weakest-link contests, noise variance has no effect on either strong or weak subjects’ efforts. In best-shot contests, however, both strong and weak subjects decrease their efforts when noise variance increases. Finally, we compare the efforts of subjects in individual and group contests. We find differences only in perfect-substitutes and best-shot contests when the noise variance is high. Efforts are higher in perfect-substitutes contests and lower in best-shot contests compared to individual contests.

In the context of classical exchange economies, we study four ways in which agents can strategically take advantage of allocation rules by affecting who participates and on what terms (Thomson in Soc Choice Welf 42:289–311, 2014). (1) An agent transfers their endowment to someone else and withdraws. The two of them may end up controlling resources that allow them to simultaneously reach higher welfare levels than they otherwise would. (2) An agent invites someone in and let their guest use some of their (the host’s) endowment. The guest transfers back to them what they are assigned over their endowment. The host may benefit. (3) An agent withdraws with their endowment. As in (1), they and someone who stays may end up controlling resources that allow the two of them to simultaneously reach higher welfare levels than they otherwise would. (4) An agent pre-delivers to someone else the net trade that the rule would assign to that agent had the agent participated. The second agent withdraws. The first agent participates with a modified endowment. The first agent may benefit. We ask whether “the constrained priority rules”, defined by maximizing the welfare of a particular agent subject to each of the others finding their assignment at least as desirable as their endowment satisfy these various requirements. The answers are all negative. Because these types of rules are often better behaved than rules that attempt some fairness in distributing gains from trade, these results strengthen the negative conclusions reached in Thomson (2014), and they may provide the key to identifying circumstances in which rules exist that satisfy the axioms, or to proving general impossibility results.

Social capital theorists posit that association members are key agents for propagating norms of trust and trustworthiness from within associations toward the society as a whole. Nevertheless, others claim that social capital is primarily bonding, that is, it helps ingroup members better achieve internal goals, but little benefits or even costs carry over to the rest of society. We deploy experimental methods to probe into whether social capital in associations has a predominantly bridging or bonding nature. We compare members’ behavior in anonymous Trust Games with behavior by a demographically comparable sample of non-members. We find that (a) Members are significantly more trusting and trustworthy than the general population both when interacting with fellow members and with people from the general population; (b) Members trust and repay trust from people from the general public nearly at the same level as they do with fellow members. Therefore, most of social capital existing within associations “bridges” over to the rest of society. We quantify 83% of additional trust, and 71% of additional trustworthiness existing in associations vis-à-vis society at large to be bridging and the remainder to be bonding. (c) Association members are no more optimistic or less accurate in predicting others’ behavior than people from the general public. (d) Increased involvement in association activities is not correlated with increased pro-sociality.

Abstract

We consider the problem of a society that uses a voting rule to choose a subset from a given set of objects (candidates, binary issues, or alike). We assume that voters’ preferences over subsets of objects are separable: adding an object to a set leads to a better set if and only if the object is good (as a singleton set, the object is better than the empty set). A voting rule is strategy-proof if no voter benefits by not revealing its preferences truthfully and it is false-name-proof if no voter benefits by submitting several votes under other identities. We characterize all voting rules that satisfy false-name-proofness, strategy-proofness, and ontoness as the class of voting rules in which an object is chosen if it has either at least one vote in every society or a unanimous vote in every society. To do this, we first prove that if a voting rule is false-name-proof, strategy-proof, and onto, then the identities of the voters are not important.

In cooperative game theory, the concept of interaction index is an extension of the concept of one-point solution that takes into account interactions among players. In this paper, we focus on cardinal–probabilistic interaction indices that generalize the class of semivalues. We provide two types of decompositions. With the first one, a cardinal–probabilistic interaction index for a given coalition equals the difference between its external interaction index and a weighted sum of the individual impact of the remaining players on the interaction index of the considered coalition. The second decomposition, based on the notion of the "decomposer", splits an interaction index into a direct part, the decomposer, which measures the interaction in the coalition considered, and an indirect part, which indicates how all remaining players individually affect the interaction of the coalition considered. We propose alternative characterizations of the cardinal–probabilistic interaction indices.

This paper addresses how multiple individual credences on logically related issues should be aggregated into collective binary beliefs. We call this binarizing belief aggregation. It is vulnerable to dilemmas such as the discursive dilemma or the lottery paradox: proposition-wise independent aggregation can generate inconsistent or not deductively closed collective judgments. Addressing this challenge using the familiar axiomatic approach, we introduce general conditions on a binarizing belief aggregation rule, including rationality conditions on individual inputs and collective outputs, and determine which rules (if any) satisfy different combinations of these conditions. Furthermore, we analyze similarities and differences between our proofs and other related proofs in the literature and conclude that the problem of binarizing belief aggregation is a free-standing aggregation problem not reducible to judgment aggregation or probabilistic opinion pooling.

Do people with different views of what is fair attribute different intentions to actions? In a novel experimental design, participants were significantly more likely to attribute a no-redistribution vote to selfishness if they considered redistribution as being fair. I define this—attributing actions that do not adhere to one’s own fairness view to selfishness—as suspicious attribution. I develop a theory of intention attribution to show how suspicious attribution arises from two other findings from the experiment: the participants underestimate the number of people with fairness views differing from their own and overestimate the selfishness of participants with other fairness views. I discuss how the findings can help explain political polarization.

Discounting is a manifestation of behavioral impulsivity, which is closely related to self-regulation processes. The decision-making process for intertemporal choices is governed by the inhibition of impulses, which can influence both risk and time-related attitudes. This paper utilizes self-reported measures of risk, impatience, and impulsivity attitudes to examine their impact on the implicit discount rate used when weighing the current purchase cost against future energy savings of appliances. It analyzes and tests the interplay between these attitudes using specific functional forms and causal models. The results highlight the role of risk, impatience and impulsivity on the discount rate and the biases that arise from omitting impulsive attitudes. In addition, other factors such as environmental and social preferences, attitudes, and financial constraints contribute to the implicit discount rate.

We propose and test a model of loyalty in games. Players can mutually maintain loyalty by working towards a common goal that is pareto-superior to any Nash equilibrium without it. Loyalty imposes a psychological cost on defecting in an ongoing cooperation, which is thus sustained. We distinguish loyalty from reciprocity and explain how it complements guilt aversion with two dynamic games from a field experiment conducted in a Pakistani factory. The evidence supports the validity of loyalty, which has a stronger effect within than between groups.