Playing both roles in the trust game

By Stephen V. Burks, Jeffrey P. Carpenter, E. Verhoogen. 2003

293 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/11b808fdecc773bf2ba3659218352960a3b07797

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Demography

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World (2008, background): “Similar deservingness effects are found in BranasGarza (2003) who finds that donations to recipients are approximately six times larger when the recipient is identified as poor and in Burns (2004a), in which South African participants use school status and race to proxy for deservingness. Castillo a”
Social Capital, Investments and External Financing (2015, unknown): “Bourdieu’s (1984, 1986, and 1989) 4 Following Glaeser et al. (2000) other studies (e.g., Burks et al. 2003, Fehr et al. 2003) also find inconsistences in survey based measures of trusting behavior.”
Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust (2008, unknown): “In a similar investing experiment, Burks, Carpenter, and Verhoogen (2003) obtained the opposite result: Playing both roles simultaneously discouraged participants from investing money.”
Machiavellian people’s success results from monitoring their partners (2012, methodology): “77) Following the methods of the previous studies (Burks et al., 2003; Christie & Geis, 1970; Gunnthorsdottir et al., 2002), we divided the distribution of the total scores into ranges along the standard deviation above and below the mean.”
The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons (2011, unknown): “One might also think that people see role reversal as suggesting that the two players take turns being selﬁsh, as suggested in the “reduced responsibility hypothesis” in Burks et al. (2003).”
Comparing Students to Workers: The Effects of Social Framing on Behavior in Distribution Games (2004, unknown): “These results, consistent with prior expectations about Machiavellian behavior, contrast with our results in a trust game reported in Burks et al. (2003), in which high Machs were not less trustworthy than others, although we would have expected high Machs to behave opportunistically and not reward ”
Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level (2008, background): “…(Lauriola and Levin (2001)), affecting the degree of trust and trustworthiness in "trust game" experiments (Gunnthorsdottir et al. (2002) and Burks et al. (2003)), determining individual sending behavior and degree of reciprocity in "dictator game" experiments (Ben-Ner, Kong, and Putterman…”
Similarities and differences when building trust: the role of cultures (2010, unknown): “2004) and in one shot settings where participants play both roles (Burks et al. 2003), but are similar to those found in previous repeated trust games (Cochard, 2004, King-Casas et al.”
The effect of stakes in distribution experiments (2005, background): “Camerer and Hogarth (1999) review the literature on the effect of stakes in economic experiments.”
Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them (2010, background): “) Risk aversion-lottery – A risk attitude score, increasing in risk aversion, was derived from responses to a series of choices for an amount with certainty, or a 50/50 chance of getting a similar, higher or lower amount in the manner of Eckel and Wilson (2004); participants were paid randomly for o”
An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness (2007, methodology): “Our design is similar to the one used by Chaudhuri, Sopher, and Strand (2002) as well as the "two-role-trust prior knowledge" treatment employed by Burks, Carpenter, and Verhoogen (2003).”
Trust and cooperation: Social capital and community resource management (2008, background): “’s original trust game [6], the trust game played with Zimbabwean farmers [4], a study that also used the ‘‘double-role’’ playing strategy [11] and our results.”
Traditional trust measurement and the risk confound: An experiment in rural paraguay (2007, unknown): “Other researchers have found that women trust significantly less than men in the trust game (Chaudhuri and Gangadharan, 2002; Burks et al., 2003; Buchan et al., 2003; Eckel and Wilson, 2000) but in Paraguay we find that this is solely due to their higher level of risk aversion.”
Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity (2003, background): “Burks et al., however, did not explicitly consider the role of gender in their study. Each subject makes a sender decision simultaneously. Following that each subject makes a receiver decision simultaneously as well. We also asked each sender (provided she transferred a positive sum to the paired re”
Trust games: A meta-analysis (2011, background): “When subjects play both the sender and receiver roles, Burks et al. (2003) found that subjects passed less money to their counterparts.”