Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game

By T. Burnham, Kevin McCabe, Vernon L. Smith. 2000

305 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e06605c06d8d6cf38fc8ac019f4f647a8d62206

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Safety Research

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

What Do Laboratory Experiments Tell Us About the Real World (2006, background): “23 For instance, in the trust game of Burnham et al. (2000), instead of the term "counterpart" for referring to the person that an individual is matched, the authors use the word "partner" in one treatment, "opponent" in the other.”
Outcomes versus intentions: On the nature of fair behavior and its development with age (2007, background): “Burnham, McCabe, and Smith (2002) and McCabe, Rigdon, and Smith (2003) have examined – and confirmed – the importance of intentions in trust games.”
NORMS MAKE PREFERENCES SOCIAL: Norms Make Preferences Social (2015, background): “See also Hoffman and Spitzer (1985), Andreoni (1995), Eckel and Grossman (1996), Burnham et al. (2000), Goeree and Holt (2001), McCabe et al. (2003), Bardsley (2008), Fershtman et al. (2012), and Smith and Wilson (forthcoming).”
Trust games: A meta-analysis (2011, background): “For example, ‘‘framing effects’’ involving the alteration of a single word in subject instructions, like those demonstrated by Burnham, McCabe, and Smith (2000) for the public goods game, can significantly affect behavior (see also Bohnet & Cooter, 2005; Hertwig & Ortmann, 2001; Roth, 1995).”
The influence of cultural framing on play in the trust game: A maasai example (2007, background): “In a laboratory study, Burnham, McCabe, and Smith (2000) found that referring to the other player as either “partner” or “opponent” had a significant effect on levels of trust and trustworthiness exhibited in an extensive form of the trust game.”
Method in Experiment: Rhetoric and Reality (2002, background): “it makes a difference whether you are running 12 subjects (6 pairs) or 24 subjects (12 pairs) simultaneously in a session ( Burnham et al., 2000 ).”
Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games (2003, background): “Systematically referring to one’s counterpart as a “partner” in one treatment, and as an “opponent” in the other, changes observed behavior in an extensive form trust game(Burnham et al., 2000) .”
The Psychology (and Economics) of Trust (2009, background): “Burnham et al. (2000) found that referring to players as ‘partners’ rather than ‘opponents’ increased both trust and trustworthiness.”