2021
DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/wmejt
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When the rich do (not) trust the (newly) rich: Experimental evidence on the effects of positive random shocks in the trust game

Abstract: We study behavior in a trust game where first-movers initially have a higher endowment than second-movers but the occurrence of a positive random shock can eliminate this inequality by increasing the endowment of the second-mover before the decision of the first-mover. We find that second-movers return less (i.e., they are less trustworthy) when they have a lower endowment than first-movers, compared with the case in which first and second-movers have the same endowment. Second-movers who received the positive… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence, another avenue for future research would be to empirically assess how positive random shocks shape behavior in the trust game when these positive shocks can affect the level of inequality. Bejarano et al (2021) is a paper in that direction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, another avenue for future research would be to empirically assess how positive random shocks shape behavior in the trust game when these positive shocks can affect the level of inequality. Bejarano et al (2021) is a paper in that direction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Bejarano et al (2018Bejarano et al ( , 2021b, authors analyze the inequality effect on trust and reciprocity both in a context of endowment heterogeneity and inequality generated by random shocks. They find that first-movers send less to second-movers only when the inequality results from a random shock.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%