Can centralized sanctioning promote trust in social dilemmas? A two-level trust game with incomplete information.

Raymond Yu Wang, Cho Nam Ng
Author Information
  1. Raymond Yu Wang: Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
  2. Cho Nam Ng: Department of Geography, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Abstract

The problem of trust is a paradigmatic social dilemma. Previous literature has paid much academic attention on effects of peer punishment and altruistic third-party punishment on trust and human cooperation in dyadic interactions. However, the effects of centralized sanctioning institutions on decentralized reciprocity in hierarchical interactions remain to be further explored. This paper presents a formal two-level trust game with incomplete information which adds an authority as a strategic purposive actor into the traditional trust game. This model allows scholars to examine the problem of trust in more complex game theoretic configurations. The analysis demonstrates how the centralized institutions might change the dynamics of reciprocity between the trustor and the trustee. Findings suggest that the sequential equilibria of the newly proposed two-level model simultaneously include the risk of placing trust for the trustor and the temptation of short-term defection for the trustee. Moreover, they have shown that even a slight uncertainty about the type of the newly introduced authority might facilitate the establishment of trust and reciprocity in social dilemmas.

References

  1. Appetite. 2004 Feb;42(1):21-32 [PMID: 15036780]
  2. Science. 2008 Dec 5;322(5907):1510 [PMID: 19056978]
  3. Science. 2006 Jun 23;312(5781):1767-70 [PMID: 16794075]
  4. Nature. 2010 Aug 12;466(7308):861-3 [PMID: 20631710]
  5. Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 22;276(1655):323-9 [PMID: 18812292]
  6. Science. 2010 Apr 30;328(5978):617-20 [PMID: 20431013]
  7. Science. 2007 Jun 29;316(5833):1905-7 [PMID: 17600218]
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Mar 18;100(6):3531-5 [PMID: 12631700]
  9. Nature. 2002 Jan 10;415(6868):137-40 [PMID: 11805825]
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2013 May 7;280(1758):20122723 [PMID: 23466983]
  11. Nature. 2003 Oct 23;425(6960):785-91 [PMID: 14574401]
  12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 10;102(19):7047-9 [PMID: 15857950]
  13. Nature. 2006 Aug 24;442(7105):912-5 [PMID: 16929297]
  14. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Sep 22;279(1743):3716-21 [PMID: 22764167]
  15. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 5;108(27):11023-7 [PMID: 21690401]
  16. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Apr;8(4):185-90 [PMID: 15050515]
  17. Nature. 2006 Dec 7;444(7120):718-23 [PMID: 17151660]
  18. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e73793 [PMID: 24015312]

MeSH Term

Cooperative Behavior
Game Theory
Humans
Models, Theoretical
Motivation
Peer Group
Punishment
Social Behavior
Trust

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0trustgamesocialcentralizedreciprocitytwo-levelproblemeffectspunishmentinteractionssanctioninginstitutionsincompleteinformationauthoritymodelmighttrustortrusteenewlyparadigmaticdilemmaPreviousliteraturepaidmuchacademicattentionpeeraltruisticthird-partyhumancooperationdyadicHoweverdecentralizedhierarchicalremainexploredpaperpresentsformaladdsstrategicpurposiveactortraditionalallowsscholarsexaminecomplextheoreticconfigurationsanalysisdemonstrateschangedynamicsFindingssuggestsequentialequilibriaproposedsimultaneouslyincluderiskplacingtemptationshort-termdefectionMoreovershownevenslightuncertaintytypeintroducedfacilitateestablishmentdilemmasCanpromotedilemmas?

Similar Articles

Cited By