Guilt aversion in trust games

Similar documents
Incomplete Information Models of Guilt Aversion in the Trust Game

Guilt in Games. P. Battigalli and M. Dufwenberg (AER, 2007) Presented by Luca Ferocino. March 21 st,2014

Guilt in Games. By Pierpaolo Battigalli and Martin Dufwenberg*

MS&E 246: Lecture 12 Static games of incomplete information. Ramesh Johari

Public goods games and psychological utility: Theory and evidence

Game Theory. Monika Köppl-Turyna. Winter 2017/2018. Institute for Analytical Economics Vienna University of Economics and Business

Game Theory. Strategic Form Games with Incomplete Information. Levent Koçkesen. Koç University. Levent Koçkesen (Koç University) Bayesian Games 1 / 15

TI-games I: An Exploration of Type Indeterminacy in Strategic Decision-making

Disguising Lies - Image Concerns and Partial Lying in Cheating Games

ECO421: Reputation. Marcin P ski. March 29, 2018

First Prev Next Last Go Back Full Screen Close Quit. Game Theory. Giorgio Fagiolo

ONLINE APPENDICES FOR INCENTIVES IN EXPERIMENTS: A THEORETICAL INVESTIGATION BY AZRIELI, CHAMBERS & HEALY

BELIEFS & EVOLUTIONARY GAME THEORY

Introduction to game theory LECTURE 1

Equilibrium Refinements

Introduction to Game Theory

Higher Order Beliefs and Sequential Reciprocity

Game Theory. Wolfgang Frimmel. Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

EC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 7

Other-Regarding Preferences: Theory and Evidence

Introduction to Game Theory

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and

Robust Knowledge and Rationality

Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information

Equivalences of Extensive Forms with Perfect Recall

Game Theory: Spring 2017

When to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication

Reciprocity and Trust under an Evolutionary Context

Introduction to Epistemic Game Theory

Ambiguity and the Centipede Game

OTHER-REGARDING PREFERENCES: OUTCOMES, INTENTIONS OR INTERDEPENDENCE?

Building socio-economic Networks: How many conferences should you attend?

Sender s Small Concern for Credibility and Receiver s Dilemma

Informed Principal in Private-Value Environments

Strategic Abuse and Accuser Credibility

Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and Comparing Information Structures

Robust Predictions in Games with Incomplete Information

Common Knowledge of Rationality is Self-Contradictory. Herbert Gintis

Observations on Cooperation

Shaping Beliefs in Experimental Markets for Expert Services: Guilt Aversion and the Impact of Promises and Money-Burning Options

Mechanism Design: Implementation. Game Theory Course: Jackson, Leyton-Brown & Shoham

Discussion of "Persuasion in Global Games with an Application to Stress Testing" by Nicolas Inostroza and Alessandro Pavan

Incorporating Belief-Dependent Motivation in Games

Entry under an Information-Gathering Monopoly Alex Barrachina* June Abstract

Solution to Tutorial 9

INFORMATIONAL ROBUSTNESS AND SOLUTION CONCEPTS. Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. December 2014 COWLES FOUNDATION DISCUSSION PAPER NO.

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 11: Introduction to Game Theory 3

Belief-based Learning

MDEF th Workshop MDEF Modelli Dinamici in Economia e Finanza Dynamic Models in Economics and Finance

Online Appendices for Large Matching Markets: Risk, Unraveling, and Conflation

Order on Types based on Monotone Comparative Statics

Definitions and Proofs

Supplementary appendix to the paper Hierarchical cheap talk Not for publication

Conservative Belief and Rationality

WEAKLY DOMINATED STRATEGIES: A MYSTERY CRACKED

Bargaining, Contracts, and Theories of the Firm. Dr. Margaret Meyer Nuffield College

Models of Strategic Reasoning Lecture 2

Ex Post Cheap Talk : Value of Information and Value of Signals

Robust Mechanism Design and Robust Implementation

Mathematical Economics - PhD in Economics

Frustration and Anger in Games

Virtual Robust Implementation and Strategic Revealed Preference

ESSAYS ON STRATEGIC INFORMATION TRANSMISSION. Edoardo Grillo A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Rationalization and Incomplete Information

Theory of Auctions. Carlos Hurtado. Jun 23th, Department of Economics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Weak Robust (Virtual) Implementation

6.207/14.15: Networks Lecture 10: Introduction to Game Theory 2

Wars of Attrition with Budget Constraints

Basics of Game Theory

People talk about Fairness and Trust Stigler (1981) self-interest theory will win. Results = price tag on negative reciprocity

Puri cation 1. Stephen Morris Princeton University. July Economics.

Algorithms for cautious reasoning in games

SF2972 Game Theory Exam with Solutions March 15, 2013

Interactive epistemology in games with payoff uncertainty

When to Ask for an Update: Timing in Strategic Communication. National University of Singapore June 5, 2018

Random Extensive Form Games and its Application to Bargaining

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

arxiv: v2 [physics.soc-ph] 11 Feb 2009

Reciprocity in the Principal Multiple Agent Model

Refinements - change set of equilibria to find "better" set of equilibria by eliminating some that are less plausible

Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium

arxiv: v1 [physics.soc-ph] 3 Nov 2008

4: Dynamic games. Concordia February 6, 2017

NTU IO (I) : Auction Theory and Mechanism Design II Groves Mechanism and AGV Mechansim. u i (x, t i, θ i ) = V i (x, θ i ) + t i,

Bargaining Under Strategic Uncertainty

Review of topics since what was covered in the midterm: Topics that we covered before the midterm (also may be included in final):

Learning about a Class of Belief-Dependent Preferences without Information on Beliefs

EC319 Economic Theory and Its Applications, Part II: Lecture 2

Higher Order Beliefs in Dynamic Environments

Payoff Continuity in Incomplete Information Games

Government 2005: Formal Political Theory I

Strategies and Interactive Beliefs in Dynamic Games

Week of May 5, lecture 1: Expected utility theory

Mechanism Design: Basic Concepts

Persuading Skeptics and Reaffirming Believers

Global Games I. Mehdi Shadmehr Department of Economics University of Miami. August 25, 2011

Graduate Microeconomics II Lecture 5: Cheap Talk. Patrick Legros

Confronting Theory with Experimental Data and vice versa. European University Institute. May-Jun Lectures 7-8: Equilibrium

SF2972 Game Theory Written Exam with Solutions June 10, 2011

Industrial Organization II (ECO 2901) Winter Victor Aguirregabiria. Problem Set #1 Due of Friday, March 22, 2013

Transcription:

Guilt aversion in trust games Elena Manzoni Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca MMRG, 5 May 01 E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 1 / 31

Plan of the talk Trust games Experimental results Psychological games Attanasi G., P. Battigalli and E. Manzoni 01, Incomplete information models of guilt aversion in the trust game - Role-dependent guilt aversion with complete information - Role-dependent guilt aversion with incomplete information - Role-independent guilt aversion E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 / 31

Trust games Ann In Bob C Out D 1 1 0 4 Figure: Trust game E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 3 / 31

Trust games Ann In Bob C Out D 1 1 0 4 By backward induction: at stage Bob defects; at stage 1 Ann goes Out. In a traditional analysis of the game, where utilities depend only on material payoffs, Out, D is the only equilibrium of the game. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 4 / 31

Trust games and experiments Several experiments show that player in role of player A choose In with positive probability, and that players in the role of player B choose C with positive probability. Berg, Dickhaut and McCabe 1995; Ortmann, Fitzgerald and Boeing 000; Koford 1998; Charness and Dufwenberg 006; Attanasi, Battigalli and Nagel 01. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 5 / 31

Berg, Dickhaut and McCabe 1995 E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 6 / 31

Trust games and experiments Possible explanations: Guilt: disutility from disappointing other players Charness and Dufwenberg 006, Attanasi et al. 01 Reciprocity: tendency of responding with a positive action to a positive action of other players Attanasi et al. 01 Here we focus on guilt aversion as a possible explanation for the experimental behavior in the trust game. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 7 / 31

Guilt Psychologists. if people feel guilt for hurting their partners... and for failing to live up to their expectations, they will alter their behavior to avoid guilt in ways that seem likely to mantain and strengthen the relationship Baumeister et al, Psychological Bulletin, 1994. We say that player i disappoints player j if as a result of i s choice of strategy j gets a lower material payoff than j initially expected. Simple guilt. Agent i s guilt may depend on how much i believes he lets j down. Guilt from blame. Agent i s guilt may also depend on how much i believes j believes i intended to let j down. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 8 / 31

Psychological games In order to model guilt in games, we need to have a utility function that depends on beliefs. Therefore classical game theory U i = U i actions is not enough. Psychological game theory: Geanakoplos, Pearce and Stacchetti 1989: Static games, U i = U i beliefs i, actions; Battigalli and Dufwenberg 009: Dynamic Games, U i = U i cond. bel. i, cond. bel. i, actions. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 9 / 31

Attanasi G., P. Battigalli and E. Manzoni, Incomplete information models of guilt aversion in the trust game We provide an analysis of trust games with guilt aversion and incomplete information. We follow Battigalli and Dufwenberg 009. We consider four models, depending on the following characteristics: Type of guilt aversion: role-dependent only Bob is guilt averse or role-independent; Type of subjective beliefs: homogeneous or heterogeneous. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 10 / 31

Attanasi G., P. Battigalli and E. Manzoni, Incomplete information models of guilt aversion in the trust game Why is it relevant? We show how to model incomplete information with non-standard preferences. Useful for experiments which focus on non-standard preferences where it is unlikely that preferences are known. Let s start from the analysis of the role-dependent guilt aversion case with complete information. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 11 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Ann s disappointment Ann In Bob C Out D 1 1 0 4 Figure: Trust game monetary payoffs The disappointment of Ann after In, D, given her belief α is D Ann In, D, α = αm A In, C m A In, D + 1 α 0 = α E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 1 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Complete information Ann In Bob C Out D 1 1 0 4 αθ Figure: Trust game with role-dependent guilt aversion The psychological utility of Bob, given his guilt parameter θ, is u Bob In, D, α = m Bob In, D θd Ann In, D, α = 4 αθ E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 13 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Complete information Ann In Bob C Out D 1 1 0 4 αθ Out, D is an equilibrium for every value of θ: if Ann believes that Bob will choose D it is optimal for her to choose Out; with α = 0 it is optimal for Bob to choose D. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 14 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Complete information Ann In Bob Coop. Out Def. 1 1 0 4 αθ In, C is an equilibrium for θ > 1: if Ann believes that Bob will choose C it is optimal for her to choose In; in this case α = 1 therefore, given that θ > 1 it is optimal for Bob to choose C. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 15 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: types In order to model the incomplete information in this game we need to introduce a description of types and beliefs. Types: We consider structures of Harsanyi types where the set of types T i can be factorized in a set of payoff types Θ i ; a set of epistemic types identified with the interval [0, 1], that is t i = θ i, e i Θ i [0, 1] = T i. When we model role-dependent guilt aversion we assume Θ a = Θ B, where Θ A is a singleton and Θ B = {θ L, θ H }, with θ H > θ L = 0. Therefore T A = [0, 1] and T B = {θ L, θ H } [0, 1]. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 16 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: beliefs Beliefs: We call exogenous a belief about an exogenous variable or a parameter; we call endogenous a belief about a variable we try to explain with the strategic analysis of the game. In our case the relevant beliefs are: exogenous beliefs: we consider the beliefs of A ont B, τ A and the beliefs of B on T A, τ B ; endogenous beliefs: the endogenous beliefs that are relevant for our analysis are Ann s first order endogenous belief α A and Bob s second order conditional belief β B where α A = Pr Ann [C ] β B = E Bob [α A In] E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 17 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: exogenous beliefs We assume that in A s view Bob s epistemic component e B is independent of θ B. A-subjects have heterogeneous beliefs about θ B, parametrized by t A, and common beliefs about e B given by a cdf F. τ A t A [θ B = θ H, e B y] = t A F y B-subjects have heterogeneous beliefs about A s type parametrized by e B ; such beliefs are distributed according to a perturbation of the uniform distribution on [0, e B ]. τ B θ B, e B [t A x] = 1 ε min 1, x + εx e B E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 18 / 31

Bayesian perfect equilibrium A Bayesian perfect equilibrium is a pair of decision functions σ A : T A {In, Out}, σ B : T B {C, D} such that: for each player i = A, B and type t i T i, choice σ i t i maximizes i s expected psychological utility, given the beliefs of type t i about the co-player choice and the endogenous beliefs induced by σ i ; in the case of i =B, the maximization is conditional on In, with conditional beliefs computed by Bayes rule, if possible. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 19 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion Optimal strategies σ B θ L, e B = D; given θ L = 0, if Bob s payoff type is θ L he has standard preferences and he maximizes his monetary payoff. σ A t A = In if and only if t A > x; the higher is t A, the higher is the probability that Bob is guilt averse, the higher are Bob s incentives to cooperate and therefore Ann s incentives to choose In. σ B θ H, e B = C if and only if e B > y; the higher e B, the higher is Bob s distribution on Ann s types, the higher is E Bob [α In], and therefore his incentives to cooperate. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 0 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion with incomplete information Endogenous beliefs Ann s first order endogenous belief: α A t A = τ A t A [θ B = θ H, e B > y] = t A 1 F y. Bob s second order endogenous belief: Note that every type θ B, e B assigns positive probability to In: eb x τ B θ B, e B [σ A = In] = 1 ε max, 0 + ε 1 x > 0. e B Hence we obtain a conditional second-order belief by Bayes rule: β B θ B, e B = E θb,e B [α A In] 1 F y 1+x, if e B x 1, = 1 F y 1 εe B x +εe B1 x if 0 [1 εe B x+εe B x < e 1 x] B. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 1 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion Ann s incentive conditions Since the expected payoff of In for type t A is α A t A = t A 1 F y, the incentive conditions for x are 0 < x < 1 x1 F y = 1, 1 x = 1 1 F y 1. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 / 31

Role dependent guilt aversion Bob s incentive conditions Taking into account that all types θ B, e B with e B y or θ B = θ L defect, and that the conditional expected payoff of defection for type θ B, e B minus the payoff of cooperation is 0 < y < 1 E θb,e B [u B In, D] = θ B β B θ B, e B, we obtain the incentive conditions for threshold y: 1 F y 1+x = 1 1 + x y = 1 1 F y < 1 θ H., if x > y, θ H, if x y, θ H 1 F y 1 εy x +εy1 x [1 εy x+εy1 x] = 1 E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 3 / 31

Role-dependent guilt aversion with incomplete information Equilibria If we assume F y = y, from the above incentive conditions we derive the following equilibria: for θ H [ 4 3, ] : { x = θh 4 θ H y = 3 θ H for θ H > : { x = 1 y = θh 1 θ H for any value of θ H we find the equilibrium Out, D, that is: { x = 1 y = 1 E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 4 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion Ann In Bob C Out 1 θa D B Out, α B, e B 1 D 0 4 α A θ B Here we have: θ i is the guilt parameter of player i; α A = Pr Ann [C ] is Ann s first order exogenous belief; α B = E Bob [In] is Bob s first order exogenous belief. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 5 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion Ann In Bob C Out 1 θa D B Out, α B, e B 1 D 0 4 α A θ B Bob s disappointment is: D B Out, α B, s B = max {0, m B α B, s B m B Out} { max0, αb 1, if s = B = C max0, 4α B 1, if s B = D E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 6 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion Complete information Ann In Bob C Out 1 θa D B Out, α B, e B 1 D 0 4 α A θ B There are three possible equilibria in pure strategies: Out, D is an equilibrium for every pair θ A, θ B ; In, C is an equilibrium when θ A 1; In, D is an equilibrium when θ B 1 3. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 7 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: types Now T A = T B = {θ L, θ H } [0, 1]. We assume that it is correctly and commonly believed that θ i and e i are independent and that the marginal distribution of e i is given by cdf F : [0, 1] [0, 1], a continuous and strictly increasing function. e i [0, 1], x, τ i e i [θ i = θ H, e i x] = e i F x. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 8 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: optimal strategies σ B θ L, e B = D; given θ L = 0, if Bob s payoff type is θ L he has standard preferences and he maximizes his monetary payoff. σ A θ L, e A = In if and only if e A > x;ann is not guilt averse, therefore the higher is t A, the higher is the probability that Bob is guilt averse, the higher are Bob s incentives to cooperate and therefore Ann s incentives to choose In. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 9 / 31

Role-independent guilt aversion in trust games Incomplete information: optimal strategies σ B θ H, e B = C if and only if e B < y; the more Bob believes that Ann is guilt averse the higher e B, the lower E Bob [α A In], the lower Bob s incentives to cooperate. σ A θ H, e A : mathematically it can be both increasing or decreasing; we conjecture that it has one of the following shapes: either σ A θ H, e A In if and only if e A > z or σ A θ H, e A = In. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 30 / 31

Conclusion We showed how to analyse incomplete information games when there are non-standard preferences. In the comparison between the complete information and the incomplete information analysis we can observe that in the incomplete information case we have less polarized behavior and beliefs. E. Manzoni Bicocca 5/5 31 / 31