Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

Living Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Credibility

  • Jeong-Yoo Kim
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_127-1

Abstract

Two kinds of credibility will be distinguished, depending on the source of information. The first credibility, which will be called type I credibility, is regarding information about the player’s intention and the second credibility, which will be called type II credibility, is regarding information about the player’s hidden characteristic. The former problem of credibility occurs when a player makes a promise or a threat (in a certain period of time) that he will do something in the future and then something happens between the two points of time. Then, the promise or the threat may not be credible, since the player will not have the incentive to keep it any more. The latter occurs when the informed player tries to pretend to be a better type by exploiting the uninformativeness of the other player. Then, the message conveying his information may not be credible as long as the incentive to pretend exists.

Keywords

Nash Equilibrium Private Information Decision Node Cheap Talk Signaling Game 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Crawford V, Sobel J (1982) Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50:1431–1451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Grossman G, Katz M (1983) Plea bargaining and social welfare. Am Econ Rev 73:749–757Google Scholar
  3. Kim J-Y (1992) Does cheap talk matter in pre-trial negotiation? Seoul J Econ 5:301–315Google Scholar
  4. Kim J-Y (1996) Cheap talk and reputation in repeated pre-trial negotiation. Rand J Econ 27:787–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kim J-Y (2010) Credible plea bargaining. Eur J Law Econ 29:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Reinganum J (1988) Plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion. Am Econ Rev 78:713–728Google Scholar
  7. Selten R (1965) Spieltheoretische Behandlung eines Oligopolmodells mit Nachfragetragheit. Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 12:201–324Google Scholar
  8. Spence M (1973) Job market signaling. Q J Econ 87:355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EconomicsKyung Hee UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea