Advertisement

Repeated Trust Game – Statistical Results Concerning Time of Reaction

  • Anna Motylska-KuźmaEmail author
  • Jacek Mercik
  • Aleksander Buczek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11890)

Abstract

The paper presents basic results regarding probability distributions together with the parameters related to the decision-making time in the repeated trust game. The results obtained are of a general nature, related to the waiting time for a reaction in computer-aided systems, as well as a special one related to the characteristics of the decision-makers participating in the experiment.

References

  1. 1.
    Akai, K., Netzer, R.J.: Trust and reciprocity among international groups: experimental evidence from Austria and Japan. J. Socio-Econ. 41, 266–276 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ariely, D., Zakay, D.: A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Physiol. 108, 187–207 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10, 122–142 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buczek, A.: The time to completion of a legal merger: general concepts, statistical analysis and the case of Poland. Oper. Res. Decisions 26(1), 19–44 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burr, I.W.: Cumulative frequency functions. Ann. Math. Stat. 13(2), 215–232 (1942)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheyette, S., Konstantinidis, E., Harman, J.L., Gonzalez, C.: Choice adaptation to increasing and decreasing event probabilities. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2016), Philadelphia, PA (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dagum, C.: A new model of personal income distribution: specification and estimation. Economie Appliquée 30, 413–437 (1977)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erev, I., Barron, G.: On adaptation, maximization, and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychol. Rev. 112, 912–931 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gonzalez, C., Meyer, J.: Integrating trends in decision making research. J. Cogn. Eng. Decis. Making. Advance online publication (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416655256
  10. 10.
    Gonzalez, C., Fakhari, P., Busemeyer, J.: Dynamic decision making: learning processes and new research directions. Hum. Factors 59(5), 713–721 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720817710347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez, C., Lerch, J.F., Lebiere, C.: Instance-based learning in dynamic decision making. Cogn. Sci. 27, 591–635 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guillen, P., Ji, D.: Trust, discrimination and acculturation. Experimental evidence on Asian international and Australian domestic university students. J. Socio-Econ. 40, 594–608 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hertwig, R., Pleskac, T.J.: The game of life: how small samples render choice simpler. In: Chater, N., Oaksford, M. (eds.) The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science, pp. 209–235. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hertwig, R., Pleskac, T.J.: Decisions from experience: why small samples? Cognition 115, 225–237 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleiber, C., Kotz, S.: Statistical Size Distributions in Economics and Actuarial Sciences. Wiley, New Jersey (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lejarraga, T., Dutt, V., Gonzalez, C.: Instance-based learning: a general model of repeated binary choice. J. Behav. Decis. Making 25, 143–153 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lejarraga, T., Hertwig, R., Gonzalez, C.: How choice ecology influences search in decisions from experience. Cognition 124, 334–342 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lejarraga, T., Lejarraga, J., Gonzalez, C.: Decisions from experience: how groups and individuals adapt to change. Mem. Cogn. 42, 1384–1397 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Markowska–Przybyła, U., Ramsey, D.: A Game Theoretical Study of Generalised Trust and Reciprocation in Poland. I. Theory and Experimental Design. Operations Research and Decisions, No. 3 (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mehlhorn, K., Ben-Asher, N., Dutt, V., Gonzalez, C.: Observed variability and values matter: towards a better understanding of information search and decisions from experience. J. Behav. Decis. Making 27, 328–339 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Motylska-Kuzma, A., Mercik, J., Sus, A.: Repeatable trust game – preliminary experimental results. In: Nguyen, N.T., et al. (eds.) TCCI 2019. LNCS, vol. 11890. Springer, Cham (2019)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rakow, T., Miler, K.: Doomed to repeat the successes of the past: history is best forgotten for repeated choices with non-stationary payoffs. Mem. Cogn. 37, 985–1000 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russo, J.E., Schoemaker, P.J.: Decision Traps: Ten Barriers to Brilliant Decision-Making and How to Overcome Them. Doubleday/Currency, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shanks, D.R., Tunney, R.J., McCarthy, J.D.: A re-examination of probability matching and rational choice. J. Behav. Decis. Making 15, 233–250 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, S.K., Maddala, G.S.: A function for size distribution of incomes. Econometrica 44(5), 963–970 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slonim, R., Garbarino, E.: Increases in trust and altruism from partner selection: experimental evidence. Exp. Econ. 11, 134–153 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WSB University in WroclawWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations