Delayed and Inconsistent Information and the Evolution of Trust

Trust is essential in virtually all economic interactions. In this paper, we build on previous work analyzing the “trust game” from the perspective of evolutionary dynamics. There are two players: an “investor” and a “trustee.” The investor begins with one monetary unit and can choose to transfer it to the trustee. The transfer, if made, is multiplied by a factor b>1 representing the gains that arise from cooperation. The trustee can then return a fraction of his choosing to the investor. Previous work has shown that adding information to this game can lead to trusting and trustworthy behavior. But in those models, information spreads instantaneously and investors never face conflicting information. Here, we relax both of these assumptions. We introduce delays in information propagation so that an investor may still be acting on old information after a trustee has changed his behavior. And we give investors “memories” and thereby allow for the possibility that they might face conflicting information about trustees. In both cases, we find that the trust and trustworthiness induced by information is robust to delays and conflicts. Even if it takes time for information to spread, and even if investors sometimes deem information to be unreliable, the benefits of trust are realized with just moderate levels of information about trustees. We conclude that information (or “reputation”) is a robust explanation for the trust and trustworthiness observed among humans.

[1]  David G. Rand,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics in finite populations can explain the full range of cooperative behaviors observed in the centipede game. , 2012, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  James C. Cox,et al.  How to identify trust and reciprocity , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  Joyce E. Berg,et al.  Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History , 1995 .

[4]  R. Brandis The Limits of Organization , 1975 .

[5]  Werner Güth,et al.  Evolutionarily Stable Co-operative Commitments , 2000 .

[6]  Andrei Shleifer,et al.  Trust in Large Organizations , 1996 .

[7]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  Trust, Risk and Betrayal , 2003 .

[8]  Rory Smead,et al.  The Evolution of Cooperation in the Centipede Game with Finite Populations* , 2008, Philosophy of Science.

[9]  David G. Rand,et al.  Stochastic evolutionary dynamics resolve the Traveler's Dilemma. , 2012, Journal of theoretical biology.

[10]  K. Shepsle,et al.  Perspectives on Positive Political Economy: REFLECTIONS ON THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS , 1990 .

[11]  K. Arrow The limits of organization , 1974 .

[12]  David G. Rand,et al.  The value of reputation , 2012, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[13]  Edward,et al.  Measuring Trust , 2000 .

[14]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Information, Irrationality and the Evolution of Trust , 2012 .

[15]  Arne Traulsen,et al.  Pairwise comparison and selection temperature in evolutionary game dynamics. , 2007, Journal of theoretical biology.

[16]  Deepak Malhotra,et al.  Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties , 2004 .

[17]  E. Fehr,et al.  Does Fairness Prevent Market Clearing? An Experimental Investigation , 1993 .

[18]  S. Quartz,et al.  Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Economic Exchange , 2005, Science.

[19]  Stephen F. Knack,et al.  Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation , 1997 .

[20]  David M. Kreps Corporate culture and economic theory , 1990 .

[21]  P. Zak,et al.  Trust and Growth , 2001 .

[22]  Alexandra A. Mislin,et al.  Trust games: A meta-analysis , 2011 .

[23]  Iris Bohnet,et al.  Implications for Trust and Trustworthiness When Institutions Change , 2004 .

[24]  Alasdair I. Houston,et al.  Evolution of trust and trustworthiness: social awareness favours personality differences , 2008, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.