Trust, Reciprocity, and Other-Regarding Preferences: Groups Vs. Individuals and Males Vs. Females

By James C. Cox. 2002

199 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Management Science and Operations Research, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a4ba769cd965ccbdb22d338bf943b780ebfc089f

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 Management Science and Operations Research

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

When are Women More Generous than Men (2007, methodology): “Our results seem to be at odds with data reported by Cox (2002), but a close look proves interesting.”
Explanations of interindividual – intergroup discontinuity: A review of the evidence (2007, background): “A number of studies are consistent with the idea that groups have better comprehension of experimental games than do individuals (Bornstein et al., 2004, Experiment 1; Bornstein & Yaniv, 1998; Cox, 2002).”
Trust between individuals and groups: Groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy (2007, methodology): “Our paper extends the work by Cox (2002) in two ways: First, and most importantly, we studied not only the symmetric games where both players are either individuals or groups, but also the asymmetric cases where a group plays against an individual and vice versa.”
Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size (2005, background): “For instance, teams have been found to behave more in line with payoff maximization in strategic bargaining games like the ultimatum game (where teams demand more than individuals in the role of proposer and accept lower offers in the role of responder; Bornstein and Yaniv, 1998) or the trust game (”
How to identify trust and reciprocity (2004, methodology): “Similar experiments comparing group and individual behavior in the investment game were conducted in the spring of 1999 and reported in Cox (2002).”
An investment game with third-party intervention (2007, unknown): “8 See for instance Croson & Buchan (1999), Cox (2002), Cox (2004), Gneezy et al. (2000).”
A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness (2007, background): “The first application returns to the dictator game in Cherry et al. (2002) and interprets their earned endowment treatment as a status variable. The next application considers dictator control data from the investment game in Cox (2004), and looks for efficiency concerns.”
On the Nature of Reciprocal Motives (2005, methodology): “PROCEDURES IN THE PUNISHMENT-MUG EXPERIMENT We used a double-blind protocol similar to that used by Berg, Dickhaut and McCabe (1995) and Cox (2002; 2004).”
Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments (2007, background): “The challenging question is why some related experimental studies found that groups are more selfish than individuals (Bornstein and Yaniv, 1998; Bornstein et al., 2002a; Cox, 2002).”
THE DECISION MAKER MATTERS: INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP BEHAVIOUR IN EXPERIMENTAL BEAUTY- (2005, unknown): “20 A recent paper by Cox and Hayne (2002), for instance, shows that groups may even do worse than individuals in common value auctions.”