Third Party Reviews and Trust Formation

Abstract

This paper formulates a subjective trust game in order to investigate the trust formation processes between a truster and a trustee, who have different cognitive schemes. Furthermore, as the institutional designs to build a trust relationship between them, alternative forms of third party reviews, i.e., 1) a single reviewer, 2) multiple reviewers, 3) multiple reviewers with interpreters, are presented. Especially, an optimal composition of reviewers in the third party is examined for the mechanism of checks and balances among the members to be worked well.

Public Reviews and Trust Formation in Disaster Risk Management

“…Our analysis is conducted by formulating two linked communication games, which describe, respectively, 1) information transmission from public reviewers to a policy maker and 2) trust formation between a policy maker and an individual who represents various stakeholders related to a disaster risk management plan. In what follows, we especially call the latter game the "trust game" [8][11] [12]. Let us consider a situation where a policy maker must make a decision about a disaster risk management plan.…”

“…A disaster risk management project (alternative X) is characterized by the properties of the project, while a policy maker and an individual recognize these properties by different cognitive schemes. This paper describes the cognitive dissonance between the policy maker and the individual as they play different subjective games [8][14] [15]. Figure 1 shows the subjective framework of the trust game proposed in this paper.…”

“…Public reviews are expected to carry out a variety of functions from raising democratic potential to learning stakeholders' opinions of a disaster risk management plan. Among them, this paper examines two roles of public reviews in disaster risk management: 1) providing information to a policy maker (local government) about the desirability of a disaster risk management plan [1] [2][3] [4] and 2) supporting stakeholders' trust in a policy maker's decisions [5] [6] [7] [8]. First, a policy maker frequently fails to solve disaster risk management problems involving environments of high uncertainty and ambiguity.…”