How to identify trust and reciprocity

By James C. Cox. Games Econ. Behav., 2004

1,038 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e828a1b27ffcf0d6183c6e038ba6e8fc12099199

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 General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

Microfoundations of Social Capital (2012, neutral): “2 An additional concern with using trust games is that first-mover choices in the trust game may not only reflect genuine trust but may also be affected by risk attitudes (Karlan 2005, Schechter 2007), altruism and reciprocity (Cox 2004), or betrayal aversion (Bohnet et al.”
Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game (2008, background): “First, it makes the second-mover’s decision comparable to decisions in the related dictator game and allows us to compare behavior by the responder in these games to behavior by senders in those games, as suggested by Cox (2004).”
Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups (2007, background): “…preferences—like trust, trustworthiness, reciprocity or inequity aversion (see e.g. Fehr and Schmidt, 1999; Bolton and Ockenfels, 2000; Charness and Rabin, 2002; Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger, 2004; Falk and Fischbacher, 2006)— are heavily rooted in experimental studies of 20-year-old students.”
On the Economics and Biology of Trust (2009, background): “Cox (2004) argues that one can derive a pure measure of behavioral trust by taking the difference between the first mover transfer in a trust game and what the person voluntarily gives in an otherwise identical dictator game.”
Distinguishing trust from risk: An anatomy of the investment game (2010, background): “4 A study of connections between pro-social preferences and trusting decisions is reported by Cox (2004).”
A tractable model of process fairness under risk (2009, background): “In bargaining experiments with monetary payoffs, the fairness of outcomes and processes has been shown to influence the probability that an agreement is reached, and the nature of the agreed upon allocation (Bolton, Brandts, & Ockenfels, 2005; Cox, 2004; Gachter & Riedl, 2005, 2006; Roth, 1995).”
The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism--Experimental Evidence and New Theories. (2005, methodology): “17 Cox et al. estimate the parameters of their model separately using the existing experimental data for the mini-ultimatum game [Falk, Fehr and Fischbacher (2003)] and for”
Charitable Giving as a Signal of Trustworthiness: Disentangling the Signaling Benefits of Altruistic Acts (2013, background): “Cox (2004) was the first to experimentally combine the dictator game (Forsythe, Horowitz, Savin, & Sefton, 1994) and the investment game (Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995) to disentangle trustworthiness expectations from other motives behind trusters' decisions.”
When are Women More Generous than Men (2007, background): “The role of the monitor is similar to that in Cox (2002; 2004).”
An investment game with third-party intervention (2007, background): “3 See for example Barr (2003), Cox (2004) or Gneezy, Güth and Verboven (2000), among others.”
Intention and Stochastic Outcomes: An Experimental Study (2007, background): “7 On yet another hand, Cox (2000) finds evidence of positive reciprocity in a 'trust' game, as the amount returned depends on whether the amount received was sent intentionally or determined by an exogenous draw.”
Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them (2010, background): “However, as Cox (2004) and others have pointed out, the amount sent may also reflect A’s altruism towards B, independent of A’s trusting.”
Chapter 8 The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories (2006, background): “53 Cox (2004) tries to isolate rewarding responses in the context of a trust game by using a related dictator game as a control condition.”
INTERDEPENDENT PREFERENCES AND RECIPROCITY (2005, background): “Cox (2004) compares the outcomes of three related games designed to separate predictions from different models designed to identify the source of non-selfish behavior in experimental trust games.”