IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v9y2021i21p2743-d667003.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolutionary Game of Multi-Subjects in Live Streaming and Governance Strategies Based on Social Preference Theory during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Tinggui Chen

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
    Academy of Zhejiang Culture Industry Innovation & Development, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Lijuan Peng

    (School of Statistics and Mathematics, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Jianjun Yang

    (Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of North Georgia, Oakwood, GA 30566, USA)

  • Guodong Cong

    (School of Tourism and Urban-Rural Planning, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Guoping Li

    (Zhejiang Liziyuan Food Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

After the outbreak of the COVID-19, offline consumption has been significantly impacted. For the sake of safety, online consumption has become the most common manner, and this has generated e-commerce, which not only breaks the spatio-temporal or regional restrictions, but also conforms to the normal economic development needs for epidemic prevention and control. However, this new business model causes problems such as the shortage of post-sales service, false publicity, and uneven quality of live streaming anchors, seriously affecting the interests of consumers. Therefore, it is urgent to strengthen the management of the chaos of live streaming. This study focuses on exploring the problems and the behavioral strategies of stakeholders in the governance process. The paper obtained online user comments by python, and used topic clustering and subject extraction methods to dig out the problems and related multiple subjects in live streaming at first. Secondly, the theory of social preference was introduced to construct an evolutionary game model among multiple subjects, and how to guide the behavioral decision-making of multiple subjects to standardize and rationalize was studied, so as to control the problem of live streaming. Finally, simulation experiments were conducted and the results demonstrated that: (1) Compared with strengthening the reciprocal preference of the government, live streaming platforms, and consumers, changing the individual’s altruistic preference is more effective in controlling the chaos of live streaming; (2) weakening the platform’s altruistic preference for anchors is conducive to creating a good live streaming environment; and (3) changing consumers’ altruistic preference or reciprocal preference is less effective in promoting the governance of the live streaming environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Tinggui Chen & Lijuan Peng & Jianjun Yang & Guodong Cong & Guoping Li, 2021. "Evolutionary Game of Multi-Subjects in Live Streaming and Governance Strategies Based on Social Preference Theory during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(21), pages 1-41, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:21:p:2743-:d:667003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/21/2743/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/9/21/2743/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "A perspective on psychology and economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 657-685, May.
    2. Thiel, Hendrik & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2013. "Noncognitive skills in economics: Models, measurement, and empirical evidence," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 189-214.
    3. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Ortona, Guido & Ottone, Stefania & Ponzano, Ferruccio & Scacciati, Francesco, 2008. "Labour supply in presence of taxation financing public services. An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 619-631, November.
    6. Li, You & Li, Xiaolin & Cai, Jiali, 2021. "How attachment affects user stickiness on live streaming platforms: A socio-technical approach perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Santarelli, Enrico & D'Altri, Samuele, 2003. "The Diffusion of E-Commerce Among SMEs: Theoretical Implications and Empirical Evidence," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 273-283, November.
    8. Prince Clement Addo & Jiaming Fang & Andy Ohemeng Asare & Nora Bakabbey Kulbo, 2021. "Customer engagement and purchase intention in live-streaming digital marketing platforms," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(11-12), pages 767-786, September.
    9. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
    10. Xin Ying An & Qing Qiang Wu, 2011. "Co-word analysis of the trends in stem cells field based on subject heading weighting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(1), pages 133-144, July.
    11. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    12. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xiaojun Mai & Fauziah Sheikh Ahmad & Jiayi Xu, 2023. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Live Streaming Commerce: Mapping the Research Landscape," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    2. Xin, Baogui & Hao, Yaru & Xie, Lei, 2023. "Strategic product showcasing mode of E-commerce live streaming," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    3. Yuan, Ning & Li, Meijuan, 2024. "Research on collaborative innovation behavior of enterprise innovation ecosystem under evolutionary game," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    2. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    3. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    5. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    6. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    7. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    8. Andrea Essl & Frauke von Bieberstein & Michael Kosfeld & Markus Kröll, 2018. "Sales Performance and Social Preferences," CESifo Working Paper Series 7030, CESifo.
    9. Dong, Bin & Dulleck, Uwe & Torgler, Benno, 2012. "Conditional corruption," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 609-627.
    10. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. Fisman, Raymond & Kariv, Shachar & Markovitz, Daniel, 2005. "Distinguishing Social Preferences from Preferences for Altruism," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9q26c4fr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    12. Klaus M. Schmidt & Martin Spann & Robert Zeithammer, 2015. "Pay What You Want as a Marketing Strategy in Monopolistic and Competitive Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1217-1236, June.
    13. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    14. Bin Miao & Songfa Zhong, 2018. "Probabilistic social preference: how Machina’s Mom randomizes her choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 65(1), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    16. John A. List, 2006. "The Behavioralist Meets the Market: Measuring Social Preferences and Reputation Effects in Actual Transactions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(1), pages 1-37, February.
    17. Ashraf, Nava & Bohnet, Iris & Piankov, Nikita, 2003. "Is Trust a Bad Investment?," Working Paper Series rwp03-047, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Kragl, Jenny & Bental, Benjamin & Safaynikoo, Peymaneh, 2024. "Incentives and Peer Effects in the Workplace: On the Impact of Envy and Wage Transparency on Organizational Design," VfS Annual Conference 2024 (Berlin): Upcoming Labor Market Challenges 302380, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    19. Nicklisch, Andreas & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2012. "On the nature of reciprocity: Evidence from the ultimatum reciprocity measure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 892-905.
    20. Romina Boarini & Jean-François Laslier & Stéphane Robin, 2009. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility in bargaining: evidence from a transcontinental ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 341-373, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:9:y:2021:i:21:p:2743-:d:667003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.