IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0249722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of disclosing the relation between effort and unit reliability on system reliability: An economic experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ryoji Makino
  • Kenju Akai
  • Jun-ichi Takeshita
  • Takanori Kudo
  • Keiko Aoki

Abstract

The purpose is to experimentally examine the effect of disclosing the risk probability of each unit in a production system on human behavior and the resulting system reliability. We used an economic experiment based on the theoretical model of Hausken (2002) to evaluate the effect of disclosing the relation between effort and unit reliability. We conducted first the non-disclosed-risk experiment and then the disclosed-risk experiment within subjects in both series and parallel systems. Our experimental results show that disclosing the relation between effort and unit reliability has two positive effects. First, subjects succeeded in improving the system reliability while cutting back on efforts to reduce the risk of their units when the risk probability was disclosed. In each system, the disclosed-risk condition achieves significantly higher system reliability on average than does the non-disclosed-risk condition, although the average level of effort is significantly lower under the disclosed-risk condition than under the non-disclosed-risk condition. Second, disclosing the risk probability simplified the subjects’ decision-making process and reduced its cost because subjects made their decisions on the amount of effort to exert based only on the risk probability information without considering other factors, such as the number of accidents.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryoji Makino & Kenju Akai & Jun-ichi Takeshita & Takanori Kudo & Keiko Aoki, 2021. "Effect of disclosing the relation between effort and unit reliability on system reliability: An economic experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0249722
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249722
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249722&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0249722?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kjell Hausken & Sheheryar Banuri & Dipak Gupta & Klaus Abbink, 2015. "Al Qaeda at the bar: coordinating ideologues and mercenaries in terrorist organizations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 57-73, July.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    3. Jack Hirshleifer, 1983. "From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 371-386, January.
    4. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    5. Seth D. Guikema, 2009. "Game Theory Models of Intelligent Actors in Reliability Analysis: An Overview of the State of the Art," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Vicki M. M. Bier & M. Naceur Azaiez (ed.), Game Theoretic Risk Analysis of Security Threats, chapter 2, pages 13-31, Springer.
    6. Vicki M. Bier, 1999. "Challenges to the Acceptance of Probabilistic Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 703-710, August.
    7. J. Hirshleifer, 1985. "From weakest-link to best-shot: Correction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 221-223, January.
    8. Kjell Hausken, 2002. "Probabilistic Risk Analysis and Game Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 17-27, February.
    9. Kjell Hausken, 2014. "Choosing what to protect when attacker resources and asset valuations are uncertain," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 24(3), pages 23-44.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hausken, Kjell, 2024. "Fifty Years of Operations Research in Defense," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 318(2), pages 355-368.
    2. Stefano Barbieri & David Malueg, 2014. "Group efforts when performance is determined by the “best shot”," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 333-373, June.
    3. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Iryna Topolyan, 2013. "The Attack-and-Defence Group Contests," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 049, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Bose, Gautam & Konrad, Kai A., 2020. "Devil take the hindmost: Deflecting attacks to other defenders," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    5. Grieder, Manuel & Baerenbold, Rebekka & Schmitz, Jan & Schubert, Renate, 2022. "The Behavioral Effects of Carbon Taxes – Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264112, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Crede, Carsten J., 2020. "Post-cartel tacit collusion: Determinants, consequences, and prevention," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. TOSHIHIRO IHORI & MARTIN C. McGUIRE, 2007. "Collective Risk Control and Group Security: The Unexpected Consequences of Differential Risk Aversion," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(2), pages 231-263, April.
    8. Arno Riedl & Ingrid M. T. Rohde & Martin Strobel, 2016. "Efficient Coordination in Weakest-Link Games," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(2), pages 737-767.
    9. Sang-Hyun Kim & Brian Tomlin, 2013. "Guilt by Association: Strategic Failure Prevention and Recovery Capacity Investments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(7), pages 1631-1649, July.
    10. Daniel G. Arce & Dan Kovenock J. & Brian Roberson, 2009. "Suicide Terrorism and the Weakest Link," CESifo Working Paper Series 2753, CESifo.
    11. Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jiménez & Ángel Solano García, 2012. "The Effect of Elections on Third-Party Punishment: An experimental Analysis," ThE Papers 12/01, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    12. Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2012. "Which Way to Cooperate," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(563), pages 1042-1068, September.
    13. Guidon Fenig & Giovanni Gallipoli & Yoram Halevy, 2018. "Piercing the 'Payoff Function' Veil: Tracing Beliefs and Motives," Working Papers tecipa-619, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    14. Ghislain Dutheil de la Rochère & Jean-Michel Josselin & Yvon Rocaboy, 2011. "The role of aggregation technologies in the provision of supranational public goods: A reconsideration of NATO’s strategies," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 85-103, March.
    15. Danz, David & Engelmann, Dirk & Kübler, Dorothea, 2022. "Do legal standards affect ethical concerns of consumers?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Dulbecco, Philippe & Laporte, Bertrand, 2005. "How can the security of international trade be financed in developing countries? A global public good Approach," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1201-1214, August.
    17. Arnab Mitra & Michael R. Moore, 2018. "Green Electricity Markets as Mechanisms of Public-Goods Provision: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 45-71, September.
    18. Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2019. "The attack and defense of weakest-link networks," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 179(3), pages 175-194, June.
    19. Andrew Samuel & Seth D. Guikema, 2012. "Resource Allocation for Homeland Defense: Dealing with the Team Effect," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 238-252, September.
    20. repec:elg:eechap:15325_3 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Daniel G. Arce & Dan Kovenock & Brian Roberson, 2012. "Weakest‐link attacker‐defender games with multiple attack technologies," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(6), pages 457-469, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0249722. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.