Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9k27k Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T18:14:44.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Catherine C. Eckel  and
Rick K. Wilson
Catherine C. Eckel*
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Mail Station GR31, 2601 North Floyd Rd., Richardson, TX 75080
Rick K. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Rice University
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report the results of experiments conducted over the internet between two different laboratories. Each subject at one site is matched with a subject at another site in a trust game experiment. We investigate whether subjects believe they are really matched with another person, and suggest a methodology for ensuring that subjects’ beliefs are accurate. Results show that skepticism can lead to misleading results. If subjects do not believe they are matched with a real person, they trust too much: i.e., they trust the experimenter rather than their partner.

Keywords

MethodologyExperimentTrust gameBeliefsInternet

JEL classification

C9: Design of Experiments
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , April 2006 , pp. 53 - 66
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.)

References

Andreoni, J., & Ragan, P. (2004). Trusting appearances and reciprocating looks: Experimental evidence on gender and race preferences. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University.Google Scholar
Anderhub, V., Rudolf, M., & Carsten, S. (2001). Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the internet. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashraf, N., Iris, B., & Piankov, N. (2004). Is trust a bad investment? Kennedy School, Harvard University, Working Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asparouhova, E., Peter, B., & Charles, R. P. (2003) Excess demand and equilibration in multi-security financial markets: The empirical evidence Journal of Financial Markets, 6, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2004). On representative social capital. Tilburg University, CentER Working Paper 2004-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren't fair: The effects of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossaerts, P., & Plott, C. (2004). Basic principles of asset pricing theory: Evidence from large-scale experimental financial markets. Review of Finance, 8(2), 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossaerts, P., & Plott, C., Zame, W. R. (2003). Prices and portfolio choices in financial markets: Theory and experimental evidence, CalTech Working Paper.Google Scholar
Bossaerts, P., Plott, C., & Zame, W. R. (2002). Prices and portfolio choices in financial markets: Econometric evidence, CalTech working paper.Google Scholar
Buchan, N. R., Croson, Rachel T. A., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 108(1), 168–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, T., & McCabe, K. et al. (2000). Friend-or-foe intentionality priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R., & Nancy, R. B. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race, and facial expressions in a trust game. paper prepared for the conference on trust and institutions, Harvard University, April 24-26.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision?. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(4), 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2005). Detecting trustworthiness: Does beauty confound intuition? unpublished manuscript, department of economics, Virginia Tech, March.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R. et al. (1992). Anatomy of an experimental political stock market. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1142–1161.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J., & Bernard Moore, J. (2001). Some doubts about measuring self-interest using dictator experiments: The costs of anonymity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(3), 271–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E.L., & Laibson, D. et al. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, N., Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Yamagishi, T. (1999). Reciprocity, trust, and the sense of control. A cross-societal study. Rationality and Society, 11(1), pp 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preference, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). ‘Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games.’ American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–60.Google Scholar
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic Review. 92(5), 1644–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucking-Reiley, D. (1999). Using field experiments to test equivalence between auction formats: Magic on the internet. American Economic Review, 89(5), 1063–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V., & Trouard, T. (2000). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97, 3777–3781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plott, C. R. (2000). Markets and information gathering tools, Southern Economic Journal, 67(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2001). Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of ebay's reputation system. Draft prepared for NBER workshop on empirical studies of electronic commerce.Google Scholar
Roth Alvin, E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: Evidence from eBay and amazon auctions on the internet. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1093–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth Alvin, E., Prasnikar, V., Mashiro, O.-F., & Shumel, Z. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburg, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), pp. 1068–95.Google Scholar
Scharlemann, J. P. W., Eckel, C. C., Kacelnik, A., & Wilson, R. K. (2001). The value of a smile: Game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(5), 617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavit, T., Sonsino, D., & Benzion, U. (2001). A comparative study of lotteries-evaluation in class and on the web. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(4), 483–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snijders, C., & Keren, G. (1999). Determinants of trust. In Budescu, D. V., Erev, I. and Zwick, R. (Eds.), Games and behavior: Essays in honor of Amnon Rapoport, Mahwah, NJ pp. 355–383.Google Scholar
Werner, G., Carsten, S., & Matthias, S. (forthcoming) Fairness in the mail and opportunism in the internet. A newspaper experiment on ultimatum bargaining, German Economic Review, 4(2), 243–265.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar