IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v14y2023i1p8-d1034967.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Default Matters in Trust and Reciprocity

Author

Listed:
  • Yao Zhang

    (Department of Psychology, College of Hengyi Jing Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Yushu Zhang

    (Department of Psychology, College of Hengyi Jing Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Yan Wu

    (Department of Psychology, College of Hengyi Jing Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China
    Zhejiang Key Laboratory for Research in Assessment of Cognitive Impairment, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Frank Krueger

    (School of Systems Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
    Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany)

Abstract

Trust and reciprocity promote cooperation and are key elements of a successful social life. This study investigated the framing effects on trust and reciprocity behaviors. Using an iterated one-shot within-subjects design, this study explored how trust and reciprocity decisions changed when the game was framed in terms of a give (i.e., using a standard trust game with a default of no trust) and a take (e.g., using a distrust game with a default of full trust) frame. Participants of both genders first completed the scenario version of the game (Session 1), and then played the roles of trustors (Session 2) and trustees (Session 3) with human and computer-mediated human partners either in the give or take frame. Our results showed increased trust in the give than in the take frame, but only pronounced in direct interaction with human (vs. indirect computer-mediated) partners. Participants also showed higher expectations of return in the give than in the take frame. The actual reciprocity was higher in the give than in the take frame when interacting both with human and computer-mediated human partners. The results contribute to our understanding of the factors that shape trust and reciprocity and emphasize the impact of framing the default.

Suggested Citation

  • Yao Zhang & Yushu Zhang & Yan Wu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "Default Matters in Trust and Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:8-:d:1034967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/1/8/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/14/1/8/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    2. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2008. "Representative Trust And Reciprocity: Prevalence And Determinants," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(1), pages 84-90, January.
    3. Caliendo, Marco & Fossen, Frank & Kritikos, Alexander, 2012. "Trust, positive reciprocity, and negative reciprocity: Do these traits impact entrepreneurial dynamics?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 394-409.
    4. Michael S. Haigh & John A. List, 2005. "Do Professional Traders Exhibit Myopic Loss Aversion? An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 523-534, February.
    5. Iris Vilares & Gregory Dam & Konrad Kording, 2011. "Trust and Reciprocity: Are Effort and Money Equivalent?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, February.
    6. Mercer, Jonathan, 2005. "Rationality and Psychology in International Politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(1), pages 77-106, January.
    7. Oguzhan Dincer & Eric Uslaner, 2010. "Trust and growth," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 59-67, January.
    8. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 959-985, April.
    9. Banerjee, Ritwik, 2018. "On the interpretation of World Values Survey trust question - Global expectations vs. local beliefs," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 491-510.
    10. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    11. Tovar, Patricia, 2009. "The effects of loss aversion on trade policy: Theory and evidence," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 154-167, June.
    12. Budescu, David V. & Weiss, Wendy, 1987. "Reflection of transitive and intransitive preferences: A test of prospect theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 184-202, April.
    13. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    14. Du, Shaofu & Nie, Tengfei & Chu, Chengbin & Yu, Yugang, 2014. "Reciprocal supply chain with intention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 389-402.
    15. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
    16. Bohnet, Iris & Meier, Stephan, 2005. "Deciding to Distrust," Working Paper Series rwp05-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:9:y:2014:i:2:p:90-103 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Toussaert, Séverine, 2017. "Intention-based reciprocity and signaling of intentions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 132-144.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:584-595 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 959-985, April.
    21. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. Frank Krueger, 2023. "A Yin and Yang Perspective on the Trust Game: Trust and Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-4, March.
    2. Zhihui Gao & Xinrui Liu & Xinling Zhang, 2024. "The Impact of Tie Strength on the Sustainable Participation of Farmers in Contract Farming: An Empirical Study in Inner Mongolia, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Davood Bayat & Hadi Mohamadpour & Huihua Fang & Pengfei Xu & Frank Krueger, 2023. "The Impact of Order Effects on the Framing of Trust and Reciprocity Behaviors," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.

    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. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 538-553.
    2. Fabian Bornhorst & Andrea Ichino & Oliver Kirchkamp & Karl Schlag & Eyal Winter, 2010. "Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 260-283, September.
    3. Cassar, Alessandra & Rigdon, Mary, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness in networked exchange," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 282-303, March.
    4. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga, 2014. "Playing the trust game with other people’s money," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(4), pages 615-630, December.
    5. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Ulrich Schmidt, 2015. "Paradoxes and mechanisms for choice under risk," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 215-250, June.
    6. Arnstein Aassve & Pierluigi Conzo & Francesco Mattioli, 2021. "Was Banfield right? New insights from a nationwide laboratory experiment," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(5), pages 1029-1064, November.
    7. Fabian Kleine & Manfred Königstein & Balázs Rozsnyói, 2018. "Voluntary Leadership and Asymmetric Endowments in the Investment Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-21, July.
    8. Ola Kvaløy & Miguel Luzuriaga & Trond E. Olsen, 2017. "A trust game in loss domain," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(4), pages 860-877, December.
    9. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    10. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    11. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2018. "No evidence of inequality aversion in the investment game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Gabriele Bellucci, 2022. "A Model of Trust," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-27, May.
    13. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    14. Urs Fischbacher & Simeon Schudy, 2014. "Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 411-428, September.
    15. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    16. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    17. 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.
    18. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. repec:tiu:tiucen:200457 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Anke Becker & Thomas Deckers & Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2012. "The Relationship Between Economic Preferences and Psychological Personality Measures," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 453-478, July.
    21. Uwe Jirjahn & Vanessa Lange, 2015. "Reciprocity and Workers’ Tastes for Representation," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 188-209, June.

    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:jgames:v:14:y:2023:i:1:p:8-:d:1034967. 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.