IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eaiere/v17y2020i1d10.1007_s40844-019-00155-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game

Author

Listed:
  • Hiromasa Takahashi

    (Hiroshima City University)

  • Junyi Shen

    (Kobe University
    Shanghai University)

  • Kazuhito Ogawa

    (Kansai University)

Abstract

In this paper, we examine gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in a trust game experiment. Different amounts of show-up fee and one question eliciting subjects’ reference points were used to categorize subjects into three frames—the gain frame, the gain or loss frame, and the loss frame. We mainly found that (i) male subjects are risk-seeking in both the gain frame and the loss frame; (ii) women are not always more risk-averse than men; and (iii) women display other-regarding preferences only when they are in a gain frame. These results demonstrate the importance of taking gender difference and the reference-dependent preference into account together when examining individuals’ economic behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Hiromasa Takahashi & Junyi Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa, 2020. "Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 25-38, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eaiere:v:17:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-019-00155-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s40844-019-00155-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40844-019-00155-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40844-019-00155-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schwieren, Christiane & Sutter, Matthias, 2008. "Trust in cooperation or ability? An experimental study on gender differences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 494-497, June.
    2. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Lorenz Goette & David Huffman, 2011. "Reference Points and Effort Provision," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 470-492, April.
    3. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    4. Steffen Andersen & Alec Brandon & Uri Gneezy & John A. List, 2014. "Toward an Understanding of Reference-Dependent Labor Supply: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 20695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 229-240, March.
    6. Nancy Buchan & Rachel Croson, 1999. "Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 386-391, May.
    7. Shen, Junyi & Takahashi, Hiromasa, 2013. "A cash effect in ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 94-102.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Alessandro Innocenti & Maria Grazia Pazienza, 2006. "Altruism and Gender in the Trust Game," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 005, University of Siena.
    10. Iris Bohnet & Benedikt Herrmann & Richard Zeckhauser, 2010. "Trust and the Reference Points for Trustworthiness in Gulf and Western Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(2), pages 811-828.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Oliver Hart & Christian Zehnder, 2011. "Contracts as Reference Points--Experimental Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 493-525, April.
    12. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "When Are Women More Generous than Men?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 587-598, October.
    13. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    14. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert, 2009. "The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous U.S. population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 226-240, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer (ed.), 2007. "Economics and Psychology: A Promising New Cross-Disciplinary Field," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262062631, April.
    17. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    18. K. Hilken & S. Rosenkranz & K.J.M. De Jaegher & M. Jegers, 2013. "Reference Points, Performance and Ability: A Real Effort Experiment on Framed Incentive Schemes," Working Papers 13-15, Utrecht School of Economics.
    19. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2012. "Strong Evidence for Gender Differences in Risk Taking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 50-58.
    20. 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. Ziyun Suo & Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2022. "Revisiting the Effect of Trustworthy Face and Attractive Appearance on Trust and Trustworthiness Behavior," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-03, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    2. van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & van Vugt, Mark & Wicherts, Jelte M., 2020. "Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(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. 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.
    2. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    3. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    4. Bonein, Aurélie & Serra, Daniel, 2009. "Gender pairing bias in trustworthiness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-789, October.
    5. Ziyun Suo & Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2022. "Revisiting the Effect of Trustworthy Face and Attractive Appearance on Trust and Trustworthiness Behavior," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-03, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    6. Vanessa Mertins & Susanne Warning, 2013. "Gender Differences in Responsiveness to a Homo Economicus Prime in the Gift-Exchange Game," IAAEU Discussion Papers 201309, Institute of Labour Law and Industrial Relations in the European Union (IAAEU).
    7. Kleinknecht, Janina, 2019. "A man of his word? An experiment on gender differences in promise keeping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 251-268.
    8. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert, 2009. "The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous U.S. population," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 226-240, March.
    9. Van Zant, Alex B. & Kray, Laura J., 2013. ""I Can't Lie to Your Face": Minimal Face-to-Face Interaction Promotes Honestry," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt88f3409v, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    10. Giovanni Di Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2019. "The Effects of Physical Activity on Social Interactions: The Case of Trust and Trustworthiness," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 20(1), pages 50-71, January.
    11. Bejarano, Hernán & Gillet, Joris & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2021. "Trust and trustworthiness after negative random shocks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    12. Slonim, Robert & Guillen, Pablo, 2010. "Gender selection discrimination: Evidence from a Trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 385-405, November.
    13. Catherine C. Eckel & Ragan Petrie, 2011. "Face Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1497-1513, June.
    14. van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & van Vugt, Mark & Wicherts, Jelte M., 2020. "Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Bonein, Aurélie & Serra, Daniel, 2006. "L'influence de la connaissance du genre du partenaire dans les relations de confiance et de réciprocité: une étude expérimentale [Gender bias in trustworthiness]," MPRA Paper 2523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Banerjee, Ritwik, 2016. "Corruption, norm violation and decay in social capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 14-27.
    17. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Cruickshank, Amy & Sbai, Erwann, 2015. "Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-32.
    18. Greig, Fiona, 2010. "Gender and the social costs of claiming value: An experimental approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 549-562, December.
    19. Leonardo Becchetti & Francesco Salustri & Vittorio Pelligra & Alejandra Vásquez, 2018. "Gender differences in socially responsible consumption. An experimental investigation," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(33), pages 3630-3643, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Reference-dependent preference; Gender difference; Trust game; Risk preference; Other-regarding preference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:spr:eaiere:v:17:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s40844-019-00155-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.