Advertisement

Evolution of Trust in Economic Systems

  • Terry Bossomaier
  • Michael Harré
  • James Thompson
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)

Abstract

When ET in the eponymous Spielberg movie follows a trail of Smarties to meet his new human friends, we find this entirely plausible — that a baby alien will quickly form a bond with human kids and for each to quickly learn to trust the other. This surely reflects the way trust is such a fundamental part of human nature that its absence would be more remarkable than its presence, even where one of the protagonists is a not overly attractive alien species! Another, less plausible, fictional character which has often been employed in economic settings is Homo Economicus. The character played by this economic actor is that of the perfectly informed, perfectly rational, self interested individual trying to maximise their personal utility. This view of the economic actor, particularly as it is used in decision theory, inspired Herbert Simon in his Nobel Prize award speech to criticise models of economic microphenomena [29]: “Thus economists who are zealous in insisting that economic actors maximize turn around and become satisficers when the evaluation of their own theories is concerned. They believe that businessmen maximize, but they know that economic theorists satisfice.” However, in the three decades since Simon’s speech there has been a large body of evidence accumulating which demonstrates the lack of universality of the assumptions of economic man [6] and has contributed to the advancement of more reasonable models, as described by Daniel Kahneman [14], another Nobel Laureate: “... proposed that an automatic affective valuation — the emotional core of an attitude — is the main determinant of many judgements and behaviours.”

Keywords

Small World Network Ultimatum Game Trust Game Initial Trust Indirect Reciprocity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barabási, A-L. (2002). Linked, Perseus, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bossomaier, T.R.J., Jarratt, D., Thompson, J., Anver, M. and Cooper, J. (2005). Optimisation of client trust by evolutionary learning of financial planning strategies in and agent based model. Proc. IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bossomaier, T.R.J., Thompson, J. and Jarratt, D. (2005). Modelling Dispositional Trust Amongst Financial Advisors. Proc. IBIMA 2005 International Conference on Information Management in Modern Enterprise.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brosnan, S. and de Waal, F. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425–563.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics. Journal of Economic Literature XLIII, 9–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camerer, C. and Fehr., E. (2006). When Does “Economic Man”Dominate Social Behaviour? Science 311, 47–52CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cox, J.C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behaviour 46, 260–281.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clutton-Brock, T.H. and Parker, G.A. (1995).Punishment in Animal Societies. Nature 373, 209.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Waal, F. (2003). Payment for labour in monkeys. Science 404, 563.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doebell, M. and Hauert, C. and Killingback, T. (2004). The evolutionary origin of cooperators and defectors. Science 306, 859–862.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Easterlin, R. (2004).The Economics of Happiness. Daedalus 133(2), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hardin, G. (1968) The Tragedy of the Commons Science 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Insel, T. and Fernald, R. (2004). HOW THE BRAIN PROCESSES SOCIAL INFORMATION: Searching for the Social Brain. Ann. Rev. Neuroscience 27, 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice Nobel Prize Lecture Dec. 8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kenning, P. and Plassmann, H. (2005). NeuroEconomics: An overview from an economic perspective. Brain Research Bulletin 67, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    King-Casas, B., Tomlin, D., Anen, C., Camerer, C., Quartz, S. and Montague, P. (2005). Getting to Know You: Reputation and Trust in a Two-Person Exchange. Science 308, 78.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirman, A.P. and Vriend, N.J. Learning to be loyal: A study of the Marseille Fish Market. In D. Delligatti, M. Gallegati and A.P. Kirman, eds., Interaction and Market Structure: Essays on Heterogeneity in Economics. Springer Berlin.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanti, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay, V., Gallhofer, B. and Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin Modulates Neural Circuitry for Social Cognition and Fear in Humans. The J. of Neuroscience 25(49), 11489–11493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U. and Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435, 673–676.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lotem, A., Fishman, M.A. and Stone, L. (2003). From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCabe, K. A., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V.L. and Trouard, T. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. pnas 98, 11832–11835.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCabe, K.A., Rigdon, M.L. and Smtih, V.L. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. J. Econ Behaviour & Organization 2, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCabe, K. and Smith, V. (2000). A comparison of naive and sophisticated subject behaviour with game theoretic predictions. PNAS 97(7), 3777–3781.MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moll, J., Krueger, F., Pardini, M., de Oliveira-Souza, R. and Grafman, J. (2006). Human fronto-mesolimbic networks guide decisions about charitable donations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 103, 15623–15628.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Montague, R., Hyman, S. and Cohen, J. (2004). Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control. Nature 431, 760–767.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nowak, M.A. and Sigmund, K. I. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature 437, 1291–12298.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panchanathan, K. and Boyd, R. (2004). Indirect reciprocity can stablize cooperation without the second-order free rider probem. Nature 432, 499–502.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sanfey, A., Rilling, J., Aronson, J., Nystrom, L. and Cohen, J. (2003). The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Science 300, 1755–1758.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Simon, H. (1978). Rational decision-making in business organizations. Nobel Memorial Lecture.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simon, H. (1999). Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Reflections: The SoL Journal 1(2), 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J.P., Stephan, K.E., Dolan, R.J. and Frith, C.D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature 439, 466–469.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thompson, J. and Bossomaier, T.R.J. (2006). Critical behaviour in the evolution of trust. Proc. The Sixth IASTED International Conference onModelling, Simulation, and Optimisation.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Watts, D.J. (1999). Small Worlds. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Bossomaier
    • 1
  • Michael Harré
    • 2
  • James Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Research in Complex SystemsCharles Sturt UniversityAustralia
  2. 2.School of Information Technologies and The Centre for the MindUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations