Rabin fairness

Last updated December 04, 2020

Rabin fairness is a fairness model invented by Matthew Rabin. It goes beyond the standard assumptions in modeling behavior, rationality and self-interest, to incorporate fairness.^[1] Rabin's fairness model incorporates findings from the economics and psychology fields to provide an alternative utility model. Fairness is one type of social preference.

Including fairness in the standard utility model

Past utility models incorporated altruism or the fact that people may care not only about their own well-being, but also about the well-being of others. However, evidence indicates that pure altruism does not occur often, contrarily most altruistic behavior demonstrates three facts (as defined by Rabin) and these facts are proven by past events.^[2] Due to the existence of these three facts, Rabin created a utility function that incorporates fairness.:

People are willing to sacrifice their own material well-being to help those who are being kind.
1. The attempt to provide public goods without coercion departs from pure self-interest.
2. Experiments show that people cooperate to contribute toward a public good to a degree greater than would be implied by pure self-interest. Individually optimal contribution rates, as defined by the standard utility model, are close to 0 percent.
3. During an experiment, the willingness for an individual to contribute to a public good is highly contingent on the behavior of others.
People are willing to sacrifice their own material well-being to punish those who are being unkind.
1. Evidence provided by the ultimatum game, consisting of two people, a proposer and decider, splitting a fixed amount of money. The proposer offers a division of the money, then the decider decides if he or she refuses or accepts the proposal. If the decider says yes, they split the money according to the proposer's offer, but if the decider says no, neither person gets any money.^[3]
2. Standard utility model would find that any offer proposed to the decider should be expected if it is greater than zero because utility should increase with any increase in income. Along the same lines, the standard utility model would predict that the proposer would offer the smallest amount of money possible to the decider in order to maximize his or her own utility
3. However, data shows that deciders are willing to punish any unfair offer and proposers tend to make fair offers.
Both motivations 1 and 2 have a greater effect on behavior as the material cost of sacrificing becomes smaller.

Rabin's fairness model

Rabin formalized fairness using a two-person, modified game theory matrix with two decisions (a two by two matrix), where i is the person whose utility is being measured. Furthermore, within the game theory matrix payoffs for each person are allocated. The following formula was created by Rabin to model utility to include fairness:

$U_{i}(a_{i},b_{j},c_{i})=\pi _{i}(a_{i},b_{j})+{\tilde {f}}_{j}(b_{j},c_{i})*[1+f_{i}(a_{i},b_{j})].$

Where:

a_i represents player i's strategy, b_j represents player i's belief about what player j's strategy will be, and c_i represents what player i's beliefs about player j's beliefs about player i's strategy.
1. Although this seems complicated, a is simply player i's strategy, b is player j's strategy given how he/she believes player i will act, and c is player i's decision given what strategy player j is believed to partake in.
2. In the game below, a, b, and c, will all take the form of either Grab or Share and then the payoffs would be determined and placed into Rabin's Fairness Model.
$\pi _{i}(a_{i},b_{j})$ represents the payoffs player i receives
Player i's kindness to player j is given by: $f_{i}(a_{i},b_{j})=[\pi _{j}(b_{j},a_{i})-\pi _{j}^{e}(b_{j})]/[\pi _{j}^{h}(b_{j})-\pi _{j}^{\text{min}}(b_{j})]$ $Rabin fairness$
1. $\pi _{j}^{e}(b_{j})=[\pi _{j}^{h}(b_{j})+\pi _{j}^{l}(b_{j})]/2,$ , where $\pi _{j}^{h}(b_{j})$ is player j's highest payoff and $\pi _{j}^{l}(b_{j})$ is player j's lowest payoff among points that are Pareto efficient
2. $\pi _{j}^{\text{min}}(b_{j})$ is the worst possible payoff in the matrix for player j
Player i's belief about how kind player j is being to him is given by: ${\tilde {f}}_{j}(b_{j},c_{i})=[\pi _{i}(c_{i},b_{j})-\pi _{i}^{e}(c_{i})]/[\pi _{i}^{h}(c_{i})-\pi _{i}^{\text{min}}(c_{i})]$ $Rabin fairness$
1. $\pi _{i}^{\text{min}}(c_{i})$ is player i's worst possible payoff
2. $\pi _{i}^{e}(c_{i})=[\pi _{i}^{h}(c_{i})+\pi _{i}^{l}(c_{i})]/2$ , where $\pi _{i}^{h}(c_{i})$ is player i's highest payoff and $\pi _{i^{l}}(c_{i})$ is player i's lowest payoff among points that are Pareto efficient
The two functions above can now specify player's preferences. Player i chooses a_i to maximize the expected utility of $U_{i}(a_{i},b_{j},c_{i})$

Fairness model implications

The fairness model implies that if player j is treating player i badly, if $f_{j}(b_{j},c_{i})<0$ , then player i wishes to treat player j badly as well by choosing an action, a_i, that is low or negative. However, if player j is treating player i kindly, $f_{j}(b_{j},c_{i})>0$ , then player i will act kindly towards player j, as well (For more in depth examples see Rabin (1993)).

Welfare and fairness: an application

Rabin also used the fairness model as a utility function to determine social welfare. Rabin used a game theory "Grabbing Game" which posited that there are two people shopping, with two cans of soup left. The payoffs for each are given as follows, where player i's payoffs are on the left of each pair and player j's payoffs are on the right of each pair:

	Grab	Share
Grab	x, x	2x, 0
Share	0, 2x	x, x

If both grab or both share, each player i and j get one can of soup. However, one grabs, and the other does not, then the person who grabbed gets both cans of soup. There is a Nash Equilibrium present of (grab, grab). Moreover, applying Rabin's fairness model (grab, grab) will always be a fairness equilibrium but for small values of x the cooperative choice (share, share) will Pareto dominate (grab, grab). The reasoning behind this is that if the two people both grab for and therefore fight over the cans, the angriness and bad tempers that arise are likely to outweigh the importance of receiving the cans. Therefore, while (Grab, Grab) and (Share, Share) are fairness equilibria when material payoffs are small, (Share, Share) will dominate (Grab, Grab) since people are affected by the kindness, which increases utility, or unkindness, which decreases utility, of others. This example could be generalized further to describe the allocation of public goods.^[4]

Public goods provision and fairness

Stouten (2006) further generalized the principle of fairness to be applied to the provision of public goods. He and his colleagues ran three experiments to find how participants reacted when one member of their group violated the equality rule, which states that all group members will coordinate to equally and fairly contribute to the efficient provision of public goods. Their findings demonstrated that the participants believed that the equality rule should be applied to others and therefore when one person violated this rule punishment was used against this person, in terms of negative reactions. Therefore, the equality rule applied in real-life situations should lead to the efficient provision of public goods if violations of the important coordination and fairness rules can be detected. However, often these violations cannot be detected which then leads to the free rider problem and an under-provision of public goods.

Related Research Articles

Minimax is a decision rule used in artificial intelligence, decision theory, game theory, statistics, and philosophy for minimizing the possible loss for a worst case scenario. When dealing with gains, it is referred to as "maximin"—to maximize the minimum gain. Originally formulated for n-player zero-sum game theory, covering both the cases where players take alternate moves and those where they make simultaneous moves, it has also been extended to more complex games and to general decision-making in the presence of uncertainty.

In game theory and economic theory, a zero-sum game is a mathematical representation of a situation in which each participant's gain or loss of utility is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the utility of the other participants. If the total gains of the participants are added up and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Thus, cutting a cake, where taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others as much as it increases the amount available for that taker, is a zero-sum game if all participants value each unit of cake equally.

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium, named after the mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., is a proposed solution of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.The utilization of Nash Equilibriums, and its principles date data back to the time of Cournot, a prominent Philosopher and mathematician who pioneered the understanding of economic equilibria.

Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality is a situation where no individual or preference criterion can be better off without making at least one individual or preference criterion worse off or without any loss thereof. The concept is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923), Italian engineer and economist, who used the concept in his studies of economic efficiency and income distribution. The following three concepts are closely related:

In mathematical finance, a risk-neutral measure is a probability measure such that each share price is exactly equal to the discounted expectation of the share price under this measure. This is heavily used in the pricing of financial derivatives due to the fundamental theorem of asset pricing, which implies that in a complete market a derivative's price is the discounted expected value of the future payoff under the unique risk-neutral measure. Such a measure exists if and only if the market is arbitrage-free.

In game theory, a cooperative game is a game with competition between groups of players ("coalitions") due to the possibility of external enforcement of cooperative behavior. Those are opposed to non-cooperative games in which there is either no possibility to forge alliances or all agreements need to be self-enforcing.

Fair division is the problem of dividing a set of resources among several people who have an entitlement to them, such that each person receives their due share. This problem arises in various real-world settings, such as: division of inheritance, partnership dissolutions, divorce settlements, electronic frequency allocation, airport traffic management, and exploitation of Earth observation satellites. This is an active research area in mathematics, economics, game theory, dispute resolution, and more. The central tenet of fair division is that such a division should be performed by the players themselves, maybe using a mediator but certainly not an arbiter as only the players really know how they value the goods.

Game theory is the branch of mathematics in which games are studied: that is, models describing human behaviour. This is a glossary of some terms of the subject.

The Stackelberg leadership model is a strategic game in economics in which the leader firm moves first and then the follower firms move sequentially. It is named after the German economist Heinrich Freiherr von Stackelberg who published Market Structure and Equilibrium in 1934 which described the model.

Determinacy is a subfield of set theory, a branch of mathematics, that examines the conditions under which one or the other player of a game has a winning strategy, and the consequences of the existence of such strategies. Alternatively and similarly, "determinacy" is the property of a game whereby such a strategy exists.

In game theory, a symmetric game is a game where the payoffs for playing a particular strategy depend only on the other strategies employed, not on who is playing them. If one can change the identities of the players without changing the payoff to the strategies, then a game is symmetric. Symmetry can come in different varieties. Ordinally symmetric games are games that are symmetric with respect to the ordinal structure of the payoffs. A game is quantitatively symmetric if and only if it is symmetric with respect to the exact payoffs. A partnership game is a symmetric game where both players receive identical payoffs for any strategy set. That is, the payoff for playing strategy a against strategy b receives the same payoff as playing strategy b against strategy a.

In game theory, folk theorems are a class of theorems describing an abundance of Nash equilibrium payoff profiles in repeated games. The original Folk Theorem concerned the payoffs of all the Nash equilibria of an infinitely repeated game. This result was called the Folk Theorem because it was widely known among game theorists in the 1950s, even though no one had published it. Friedman's (1971) Theorem concerns the payoffs of certain subgame-perfect Nash equilibria (SPE) of an infinitely repeated game, and so strengthens the original Folk Theorem by using a stronger equilibrium concept: subgame-perfect Nash equilibria rather than Nash equilibria.

In game theory, a correlated equilibrium is a solution concept that is more general than the well known Nash equilibrium. It was first discussed by mathematician Robert Aumann in 1974. The idea is that each player chooses their action according to their observation of the value of the same public signal. A strategy assigns an action to every possible observation a player can make. If no player would want to deviate from the recommended strategy, the distribution is called a correlated equilibrium.

Risk dominance and payoff dominance are two related refinements of the Nash equilibrium (NE) solution concept in game theory, defined by John Harsanyi and Reinhard Selten. A Nash equilibrium is considered payoff dominant if it is Pareto superior to all other Nash equilibria in the game. When faced with a choice among equilibria, all players would agree on the payoff dominant equilibrium since it offers to each player at least as much payoff as the other Nash equilibria. Conversely, a Nash equilibrium is considered risk dominant if it has the largest basin of attraction. This implies that the more uncertainty players have about the actions of the other player(s), the more likely they will choose the strategy corresponding to it.

In game theory, the traveler's dilemma is a non-zero-sum game in which each player proposes a payoff. The lower of the two proposals wins; the lowball player receives the lowball payoff plus a small bonus, and the highball player receives the same lowball payoff, minus a small penalty. Surprisingly, the Nash equilibrium is for both players to aggressively lowball. The traveler's dilemma is notable in that naive play appears to outperform the Nash equilibrium; this apparent paradox also appears in the centipede game and the finitely-iterated prisoner's dilemma.

The two-person bargaining problem studies how two agents share a surplus that they can jointly generate. It is in essence a payoff selection problem. In many cases, the surplus created by the two players can be shared in many ways, forcing the players to negotiate which division of payoffs to choose. There are two typical approaches to the bargaining problem. The normative approach studies how the surplus should be shared. It formulates appealing axioms that the solution to a bargaining problem should satisfy. The positive approach answers the question how the surplus will be shared. Under the positive approach, the bargaining procedure is modeled in detail as a non-cooperative game.

A Robinson Crusoe economy is a simple framework used to study some fundamental issues in economics. It assumes an economy with one consumer, one producer and two goods. The title "Robinson Crusoe" is a reference to the 1719 novel of the same name authored by Daniel Defoe.

Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about his/her own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.

Strategic Network Formation defines how and why networks take particular forms. In many networks, the relation between nodes is determined by the choice of the participating players involved, not by an arbitrary rule. A "strategic2 modeling of network requires defining a network’s costs and benefits and predicts how individual preferences become outcomes.

In cooperative game theory, a hedonic game is a game that models the formation of coalitions (groups) of players when players have preferences over which group they belong to. A hedonic game is specified by giving a finite set of players, and, for each player, a preference ranking over all coalitions (subsets) of players that the player belongs to. The outcome of a hedonic game consists of a partition of the players into disjoint coalitions, that is, each player is assigned a unique group. Such partitions are often referred to as coalition structures.

References

↑ Camerer, Colin & Thaler, Richard H. 2003. "In Honor of Matthew Rabin: Winner of the John Bates Clark Medal." Journal of Economic Perspectives. 17, 159-176
↑ Rabin, Matthew. 1993. "Incorporating Fairness Into Game Theory and Economics." The American Economic Review.83, 1281-1302.
↑ Thaler, Richard H., "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, Summer 1985, 4, 199-214.
↑ Souten, J., DeCremer, D., & van Dijk, Erik. 2006. "Violating Equality in Social Dilemmas: Emotional and Retributive Reactions as a Function of Trust, Attribution, and Honesty." Personality & social psychology bulletin. 32, 894-906.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] Camerer, Colin & Thaler, Richard H. 2003. "In Honor of Matthew Rabin: Winner of the John Bates Clark Medal." Journal of Economic Perspectives. 17, 159-176

[2] Rabin, Matthew. 1993. "Incorporating Fairness Into Game Theory and Economics." The American Economic Review.83, 1281-1302.

[3] Thaler, Richard H., "Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice," Marketing Science, Summer 1985, 4, 199-214.

[4] Souten, J., DeCremer, D., & van Dijk, Erik. 2006. "Violating Equality in Social Dilemmas: Emotional and Retributive Reactions as a Function of Trust, Attribution, and Honesty." Personality & social psychology bulletin. 32, 894-906.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]