Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T06:29:22.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Induced heterogeneity in trust experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Lisa R. Anderson,
Jennifer M. Mellor and
Jeffrey Milyo
Lisa R. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, College of William and Mary
Jennifer M. Mellor*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, College of William and Mary
Jeffrey Milyo*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Truman School of Public Affairs, University of Missouri
*
e-mail: lisa.anderson@wm.edu
e-mail: jmmell@wm.edu
e-mail: milyoj@missouri.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several non-experimental studies claim that heterogeneity among individuals reduces trust. A few experimental studies have examined the effects of naturally-occurring differences among subjects on trusting behavior, and in contrast, most have not supported these claims. We adopt a novel approach by inducing heterogeneity among subjects in a canonical trust experiment. We accomplish this by varying the show-up payments given to subjects for participating in the experiment. We find that this induced inequality does not consistently affect first- or second-mover behavior in the classic trust game in the manner predicted by either previous theoretical work or empirical studies of survey-based measures of trust. Further, the effect of inequality on trust, in terms of both sign and significance, depends on whether show-up payments are awarded publicly or privately.

Keywords

TrustSocial capitalInequalityExperiment

JEL classification

C9: Design of ExperimentsZ13: Economic Sociology • Economic Anthropology • Language • Social and Economic Stratification

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Behavioral Economics , September 2006, pp. 223 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2002). Who trusts others? Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 20–34.10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00084-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M., & Milyo, J. (2004a). Inequality and public good provision. Working Paper Number 12, Department of Economics, The College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. R., Mellor, J. M., & Milyo, J. (2004b). Social capital and contributions in a public goods experiment. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 94(2), 373–376.10.1257/0002828041302082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armantier, O. Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? Forthcoming in the International Economic Review.Google Scholar
Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., & Piankov, N. (2006). Decomposing trust. Working Paper, Department of Economics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Ball, S., Eckel, C., Grossman, P. J., & Zame, W. (2001). Status in markets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 161–188.10.1162/003355301556374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A.M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267.10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.10.1006/game.1995.1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouckaert, J., & Dhaene, G. (2004). Inter-ethnic trust and reciprocity: results of an experiment with small business entrepreneurs. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, S.V., Carpenter, J.P., & Verhoogan, E. (2003). Playing both roles in the trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 51(2), 195–216.10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00093-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Moir, R., & Muller, R. A. (1996). The voluntary provision of public goods under varying income distributions. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 29, 54–59.10.2307/136151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K. S., Mestelman, S., Moir, R., & Muller, R. A. (1999). Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods. Experimental Economics, 2(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochard, F., Van, P. N., & Willinger, M. (2004). Trusting behavior in a repeated investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(1), 31–44.10.1016/j.jebo.2003.07.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Costa, D., & Kahn, M. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist's perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 103–111.10.1017/S1537592703000082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, C., & Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: an experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 776(1), 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2003). A nation-wide laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. IZA Discussion Paper No. 715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 775(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J., & Holt, C. (2000). Asymmetric inequality aversion and noisy behavior in alternating-offer bargaining games. European Economic Review, 44, 1079–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassebrauck, M. (1986). Ratings of distress as a function of degree and kind of inequity. Journal of Social Psychology, 726, 269–270.10.1080/19401183.1986.12461527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson-Stenman, O., Martinsson, P., & Mahmud, M. (2005). Trust, trust games and stated trust: evidence from rural Bangladesh, Working paper, Goteborg University.Google Scholar
Koford, K. (2001). Trust and reciprocity in Bulgaria: A replication of Berg, Dickhaut and McCabe. Working Paper, University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Maximiano, S., Sloof, R., & Sonnemans, J. (2004). Gift exchange in a multi-worker firm. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, TI 2004-100/1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity: interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study. American Economic Review, 87 (5), 1068–1095.Google Scholar
Tocqueville, A. (1945). Democracy in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Originally published in 1835.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R. G. (1996). Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. Routledge (New York, New York).Google Scholar
Willinger, M., Keser, C., Lohmann, C., & Usunier, J.-C. (2003). A comparison of trust and reciprocity between France and Germany: Experimental investigation based on the investment game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zak, P., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 777 (April), 295–321.10.1111/1468-0297.00609CrossRefGoogle Scholar