Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreoni, J., & Ragan, P. (2004). Trusting appearances and reciprocating looks: Experimental evidence on gender and race preferences. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia State University.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, N., Iris, B., & Piankov N. (2004). Is trust a bad investment? Kennedy School, Harvard University, Working Paper.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2004). On representative social capital. Tilburg University, CentER Working Paper 2004–57.

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossaerts, P., & Plott, C., Zame, W. R. (2003). Prices and portfolio choices in financial markets: Theory and experimental evidence, CalTech Working Paper.

  • Bossaerts, P., Plott, C., & Zame, W. R. (2002). Prices and portfolio choices in financial markets: Econometric evidence, CalTech working paper.

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Nancy, R. B. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from trust games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 386–391.

    Article  Google 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.

  • Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(4), 447–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2005). Detecting trustworthiness: Does beauty confound intuition? unpublished manuscript, department of economics, Virginia Tech, March.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., & Laibson, D. et al. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plott, C. R. (2000). Markets and information gathering tools, Southern Economic Journal, 67(1), 1–15.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snijders, C., & Keren, G. (1999). Determinants of trust. In D. V. Budescu, I. Erev and R. Zwick (Eds.), Games and behavior: Essays in honor of Amnon Rapoport, Mahwah, NJ pp. 355–383.

  • 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.

  • Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York, Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Mail Station GR31, 2601 North Floyd Rd., Richardson, TX, 75080

    Catherine C. Eckel

  2. Department of Political Science, Rice University, Boston

    Rick K. Wilson

Authors
  1. Catherine C. Eckel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rick K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine C. Eckel.

Additional information

JEL Classification C9

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eckel, C.C., Wilson, R.K. Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners. Exp Econ 9, 53–66 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4307-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4307-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation