Playing both roles in the trust game

Burks, Stephen V.; Carpenter, Jeffrey P.; Verhoogen, Eric

doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(02)00093-8

Cited by 219 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These levels of trust and trustworthiness are higher than those observed in one shot trust game experiments (e.g. see Berg et al 1995, Cochard et al 2004) and in one shot settings where participants play both roles (Burks et al 2003), but are similar to those found in previous repeated trust games (Cochard, 2004, King-Casas et al 2005 and first rounds of Engle-Warnick and Slonim, 2004). The fact that participants are in an environment where partners are not preassigned seems to increase the amount of trust as found by Slonim and Garbiano To assess significance of our above observations we run the following two regressions.…”

Section: Population Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures

Bornhorst

Ichino

Kirchkamp³

et al. 2010

Exp Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We run an experiment in which participants are matched to a group of five and repeatedly have to choose with whom within their group they want to play a trust game. Within this group participants observe of each other age, gender, nationality and number of siblings. We find that difference in success in the experiment can only be explained in terms of regional membership, belonging to northern or southern Europe. Compared to "South", "North" show more trust in periods when trust is rewarded with sufficiently high trustworthiness and show slightly less trustworthiness at the margin apart from the first period. Differences in behavior of "North" and "South" per interaction will not explain the magnitude of the success of "North" over "South". But it is these differences that influence future partner selection as participants repeated interact within the same group. Participants tend to trust those they trusted before and who trusted them, taking into account the magnitudes when choosing who to trust next. We however do not find evidence of regional discrimination per se. It is only the underlying and significant differences in behavior that translate through repeated interaction into overall differences in payoffs that then can explain the substantial differences in success between the two regions. JEL-Code: C91, C92, Z13

show abstract

Section: Population Behaviorsupporting

confidence: 72%

“…While some find no such effect (Berg et al 1995, Willinger et al 2003, Csukás et al 2008, others do (Bohnet and Greig 2006). In particular, Burks et al (2003), Altmann et al (2007) and Ananish and Gangadharan (2007) find such a positive correlation within participants.…”

Section: Individual Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 96%

Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures

Bornhorst

Ichino

Kirchkamp³

et al. 2010

Exp Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar results were found by Boles et al [101] and Charness & Dufwenberg [102]. Gunnthorsdottir et al [103] and Burks et al [104] have shown that a socio-psychological measure of 'Machiavellianism' predicts which subjects are likely to be trustworthy and trusting.…”

Section: The Rationality Of Altruistic Behaviour: Theory and Experimesupporting

confidence: 69%

Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality

Gintis

2011

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human characteristics are the product of gene-culture coevolution, which is an evolutionary dynamic involving the interaction of genes and culture over long time periods. Gene -culture coevolution is a special case of niche construction. Gene -culture coevolution is responsible for human other-regarding preferences, a taste for fairness, the capacity to empathize and salience of morality and character virtues.

show abstract

“…Brosig et al (2003) point out: "If subjects not only think about what they would do if they were in the role of their opponent, but are in addition aware that they will subsequently be given that opportunity, they are likely to undertake greater self-reflection right from the beginning." One might also think that people see role reversal as suggesting that the two players take turns being selfish, as suggested in the "reduced responsibility hypothesis" in Burks et al (2003). This is clearly an empirical matter.…”

Section: Studies On Related Elicitation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we present a first survey of the literature regarding whether the strategy method, in which a responder makes conditional decisions for each possible information set, leads to different experimental results than does the more standard direct-response method, in which the responder learns the action of the first mover and then chooses a response. Of the twenty-nine existing comparisons, sixteen find no difference, while four do find differences, and nine comparisons find mixed evidence. We also find some indications about the underlying determinants of when the two methods lead to different responses. For example, it appears that levels of punishment are substantially lower with the strategy method. In addition, it also appears that difference across these elicitation methods are more likely when people make fewer contingent choices. Finally, in no case do we find that a treatment effect found with the strategy method is not observed with the direct-response method.

show abstract

Playing both roles in the trust game

Cited by 219 publications

References 39 publications

Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures

Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures

Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality

The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About