Advertisement

Theory and Decision

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 1–28 | Cite as

Why to Buy Your Darling Flowers: On Cooperation and Exploitation

  • Friedel Bolle
Article

Abstract

Trusting in someone's cooperation is often connected with the danger of being exploited. So it is important that signals are exchanged which make it probable enough that the potential partner is reliable. Such signals must be too expensive for partners who are planning to abuse the trust they are given but cheap enough for those who wish to initiate a long-term cooperation. In a game theoretical model, it is shown that such signals could consist of presents given before the partnership starts. These presents must be more expensive than the advantage of a one-period exploitation but smaller than the profit from a long-term partnership. In order to prevent that the receiver only collects presents, and that she is not interested in a firm partnership, these gifts should be of low value for her. Flowers are the prototype of such presents but usually not the only and not the most important signal of this kind. Nor is the partnership between men and women the only example of cooperative relations which are endangered by exploitation – but of all exploitation stories this one is most often narrated.

Cooperation Exploitation Gifts Infinite games 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Becker, G.S. (1993), A Treatise on the Family, First Harvard University Press, paperback edition.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and McCabe, K. (1995), Trust, reciprocity, and social history, Games and Economic Behavior 10: 122-142.Google Scholar
  3. Bolle, F. (1985), Natural and optimal unemployment, JITE (Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft) 141: 256-268.Google Scholar
  4. Bolle, F. (1991), On love and altruism, Rationality and Society 3: 197-214.Google Scholar
  5. Bolle, F. (1995), Does trust pay?, Discussion paper, Frankfurt (Oder).Google Scholar
  6. Bolle, F. (1998), Rewarding trust: an experimental study, Theory and Decision, 45(1): 85-100.Google Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. (1988), Gifts as economic signals and social symbols, American Journal of Sociology 94, supplement: 180-214.Google Scholar
  8. Carmichael, H.L. and MacLeod, W.B. (1997), Gift giving and the evolution of cooperation, International Economic Review 38(3): 485-509.Google Scholar
  9. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1993), Game Theory, 3rd edition, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  10. Güth, W. and Kliemt, H. (1994), Competition or co-operation: On the evolutionary economics of trust, exploitation, and moral attitudes, Metroeconomica 45: 155-187.Google Scholar
  11. Kreps, D.M. and Wilson, R. (1982), Reputation and imperfect information, Journal of Economic Theory, 253-279.Google Scholar
  12. Selten, R. (1975), Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games, International Journal of Game Theory 4: 25-55.Google Scholar
  13. Watzlawick, P. (1983), Anleitung zum Unglücklichsein, R. Piper & Co., Verlag, München.Google Scholar
  14. Webley, P., Lea, S.E.G. and Portalska, R. (1983), The unacceptability of money as a gift, Journal of Economic Psychology 4: 223-238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Europa-Universität ViadrinaFrankfurt (Oder)Germany

Personalised recommendations