IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jtrust/v7y2017i1p71-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deterrence-based trust in bargaining: Introducing a new experimental paradigm

Author

Listed:
  • Eric van Dijk
  • Varia Makagonova
  • Erik W. de Kwaadsteniet
  • Manon Schutter

Abstract

Trust, especially in the initial stages of trust building, is often assumed to be the result of deterrence-based trust. While theorising acknowledges its importance, research on deterrence-based trust has been scarce. To facilitate the investigation of the concept, we designed new versions of the trust game in which we studied both trust (Experiment 1) and trustworthiness (Experiment 2). To better model deterrence-based trust we extended a trust game with an additional phase where trustors could accept or reject the trustee’s distribution. We varied consequences of the rejection option as a delta bargaining game, thereby manipulating the potential for deterrence. The results showed that trustors were highly responsive to the possibility to reject the trustee’s distribution. Trustees, however, seemed largely unaffected and were generally highly trustworthy. Together these findings show how trust games can meaningfully be extended to assess the effect of deterrence-based trust in bargaining.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric van Dijk & Varia Makagonova & Erik W. de Kwaadsteniet & Manon Schutter, 2017. "Deterrence-based trust in bargaining: Introducing a new experimental paradigm," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 71-89, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jtrust:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:71-89
    DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2016.1254093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21515581.2016.1254093
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21515581.2016.1254093?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yu, Michael & Saleem, Muniba & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2014. "Developing trust: First impressions and experience," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 16-29.
    2. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    3. Bohnet, Iris & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2004. "Trust, risk and betrayal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 467-484, December.
    4. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    5. Edward L. Glaeser & David I. Laibson & José A. Scheinkman & Christine L. Soutter, 2000. "Measuring Trust," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 811-846.
      • Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Laibson, David I. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Soutter, Christine L., 2000. "Measuring Trust," Scholarly Articles 4481497, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    6. Lenton, Pamela & Mosley, Paul, 2011. "Incentivising trust," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 890-897.
    7. Peter Ping Li, 2012. "When trust matters the most: The imperatives for contextualising trust research," Journal of Trust Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 101-106, October.
    8. Li, Peter Ping, 2007. "Towards an Interdisciplinary Conceptualization of Trust: A Typological Approach," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 421-445, November.
    9. Gary E. Bolton & Rami Zwick & Elena Katok, 1998. "Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 27(2), pages 269-299.
    10. Suleiman, Ramzi, 1996. "Expectations and fairness in a modified Ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 531-554, November.
    11. Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
    12. Nava Ashraf & Iris Bohnet & Nikita Piankov, 2006. "Decomposing trust and trustworthiness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 193-208, September.
    13. Mara Olekalns & Feyona Lau & Philip L. Smith, 2007. "Resolving the empty core: trust as a determinant of outcomes in three-party negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 527-538, November.
    14. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    15. Malhotra, Deepak, 2004. "Trust and reciprocity decisions: The differing perspectives of trustors and trusted parties," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 61-73, July.
    16. Peter Ping Li, 2007. "Towards an Interdisciplinary Conceptualization of Trust: A Typological Approach," Management and Organization Review, The International Association for Chinese Management Research, vol. 3(3), pages 421-445, November.
    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. 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.
    2. Luo, Jun & Wang, Xinxin, 2020. "Hukou identity and trust—Evidence from a framed field experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    3. Rodriguez-lara, Ismael, 2015. "Equal distribution or equal payoffs? Reciprocity and inequality aversion in the investment game," MPRA Paper 63313, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    5. Manapat, Michael L. & Nowak, Martin A. & Rand, David G., 2013. "Information, irrationality, and the evolution of trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 57-75.
    6. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    7. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    8. Michael Manapat & David Rand, 2012. "Delayed and Inconsistent Information and the Evolution of Trust," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 401-410, December.
    9. Tamás Kovács & Marc Willinger, 2010. "Is there a relation between trust and trustworthiness?," Working Papers 10-03, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Mar 2010.
    10. Quang Nguyen & Marie Claire Villeval & Hui Xu, 2012. "Trust and Trustworthiness under the Prospect Theory: A field experiment in Vietnam," Working Papers halshs-00730609, HAL.
    11. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Li, Yaxiong & Paichayontvijit, Tirnud, 2016. "What’s in a frame? Goal framing, trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 117-135.
    12. Al-Ississ, Mohamad & Bohnet, Iris, 2016. "Risk mitigation and trust: Experimental Evidence from Jordan and the United States," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 83-98.
    13. Lora R. Todorova & Bodo Vogt, 2012. "Are Behavioral Choices in the Ultimatum and Investment Games Strategic?," FEMM Working Papers 120021, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    14. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    15. Hong, Kessely & Bohnet, Iris, 2007. "Status and distrust: The relevance of inequality and betrayal aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 197-213, April.
    16. Bejarano, Hernán & Gillet, Joris & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2021. "Trust and trustworthiness after negative random shocks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    17. Alberto E. Chong & David A. Fleming & Hernán D. Bejarano, 2011. "Trust and Trustworthiness in the Aftermath of Natural Disasters: Experimental Evidence from the 2010 Chilean Earthquake," Working Papers 2011-15, The George Washington University, Institute for International Economic Policy.
    18. Mislin, Alexandra & Williams, Lisa V. & Shaughnessy, Brooke A., 2015. "Motivating trust: Can mood and incentives increase interpersonal trust?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 11-19.
    19. Evans, Anthony M. & Athenstaedt, Ursula & Krueger, Joachim I., 2013. "The development of trust and altruism during childhood," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 82-95.
    20. Volland, Benjamin, 2017. "The role of risk and trust attitudes in explaining residential energy demand: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 14-30.

    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:taf:jtrust:v:7:y:2017:i:1:p:71-89. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJTR20 .

    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.