Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 43–63 | Cite as

The Politics of Interpersonal Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach

Original Paper


Trust and reciprocity are theoretically essential to strong democracies and efficient markets. Working from the theoretical frameworks of social identity and cognitive heuristics, this study draws on dual-process models of decision making to expect (1) the trustor to infer trustworthiness from partisan stereotypes and thus to discriminate trust in favor of co-partisans and against rival partisans, but (2) the trustee to base reciprocity decisions on real information about the trustor’s deservingness rather than a partisan stereotype. So whereas partisanship is likely to trigger trust biases, the trust decision itself provides enough information to override partisan biases in reciprocity. The analysis derives from a modified trust game experiment. Overall, the results suggest partisanship biases trust decisions among partisans, and the degree of partisan trust bias is consistent with expectations from both social identity theory and cognitive heuristics. When it comes to reciprocity, however, information about the other subject’s level of trust nullifies partisan bias.


Interpersonal trust Partisanship Behavioral economics Political psychology Experiments 

Supplementary material

11109_2011_9181_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (108 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 107 kb)


  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Is polarization a myth? Journal of Politics, 70(2), 542–555.Google Scholar
  2. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Scranton, PA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  4. Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., & Piankov, N. (2006). Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Experimental Economics, 9(3), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed voters: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berg, J., Dickaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. D. (2005). The rise of partisanship and the expansion of partisan conflict within the American electorate. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 219–229.Google Scholar
  10. Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A., & Solnick, S. (2008). Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the investment game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3–4), 466–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, J. (2006). Racial stereotypes, stigma and trust in post-apartheid South Africa. Economic Modeling, 23(5), 805–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Camerer, C. F., & Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Cárdenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Behavioral development economics: Lessons from field labs in the developing world. Journal of Development Studies, 44(3), 311–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardenas, J. C., Chong, A., & Ñopo, H. (2009). To what extent do Latin Americans Trust, reciprocate, and cooperate? Evidence from experiments in six Latin American countries. Economia, 9(2), 45–88.Google Scholar
  16. Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2010). Discrimination in the lab: Does information trump appearance? Games and Economic Behavior, 68(1), 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chandra, K. (2003). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic headcounts in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2005). Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games. Game and Economic Behavior, 53(2), 151–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chaudhuri, A., & Gangadharan, L. (2003). Sending money in the trust game: Trust or other regarding preferences?” Working Paper, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  21. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cox, J. C. (2004). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46(2), 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dahl, R. A. (1997). Toward democracy—A journey, reflections: 1940–1997. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Government Studies Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dawes, C. T., Loewen, P. J., & Fowler, J. H. (Forthcoming). Social preferences and political participation. Journal of Politics 73, 845–856.Google Scholar
  27. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J. W., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102(3), 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  29. Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2009). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the “Narrow Data Base”. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  30. Eckel, C. C., & Petrie, R. (2011). Face value. American Economic Review, 101(4), 1497–1513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). The human face of game theory. In E. Ostrom & J. M. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research (pp. 245–274). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2006). Internet cautions: Experimental games with internet partners. Experimental Economics, 9(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evans, J. W. (2003). Have Americans’ attitudes become more polarized?—an update. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., &Wagner, G. (2003). A nation-wide laboratory: Examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. IZA Discussion Paper No. 715.Google Scholar
  35. Fershtman, C., & Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fershtman, C., Gneezy, U., & Verboven, F. (2005). Discrimination and nepotism: The efficiency of the anonymity rule. Journal of Legal Studies, 34(2), 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fiornia, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture War? The myth of a polarized America (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Fowler, J. H. (2006). Altruism and turnout. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 674–683.Google Scholar
  40. Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: Social identity, altruism, and political participation. Journal of Politics, 69(3), 813–827.Google Scholar
  41. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gabarino, E., & Slonim, R. (2009). The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous U.S. population. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(3), 226–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. González, R., Manzi, J., Saiz, J., Brewer, M., Torres, D., Aravena, M. T., et al. (2008). Interparty attitudes in Chile: Coalitions as superordinate identities. Political Psychology, 29(1), 93–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goren, P. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Caul Kittilson, M. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Haile, D., Sadrieh, A., & Verbon, H. A. A. (2008). Cross-racial envy and underinvestment in South African partnerships. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(5), 703–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harris, L. T., McClure, S. M., van den Bos, W., Cohen, J. D., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Regions of the MPFC differentially tuned to social and nonsocial affective evaluation. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (Eds.). (2004). Foundations of human sociality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (1995). Congress as public enemy. New York: Cambridge University House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. T. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 888–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Inglehart, R. (1988). The renaissance of political culture. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1203–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 643–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Johansson-Stenman, O., Mahmud, M., & Martinsson, P. (2005). Does stake size matter in trust games? Economic Letters, 88, 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Johansson-Stenman, O., Mahmud, M., & Martinsson, P. (2009). Trust and religion: Experimental evidence from rural Bangladesh. Economica, 79(303), 462–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. (2009). Cultures of kindness: A meta-analysis of trust game experiments. Working Paper 09-15, Mercatus Center, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  64. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Keele, L., McConnaughy, C., & White, I. (2008). Statistical inference for experiments. Working Paper Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  66. Koch, J. W. (2001). When parties and candidates collide: Citizen perceptions of house candidates’ positions on abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kollock, P. (1993). ‘An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind’: Cooperation and accounting systems. American Sociological Review, 58(6), 768–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Krueger, F., McCabe, K., Moll, J., Kriegeskorte, N., Zahm, R., Strenziok, M., et al. (2007). Neural correlates of trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(50), 20084–20089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics, 56(3), 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., Green, J. C., Herrera, R., & Cooperman, R. (2010). Party polarization, party commitment and conflict extension among American party activists. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 324–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Levi, M. (1998). A state of trust. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  73. Lev-On, A., Chavez, A., & Bicchieri, C. (2010). Group and dyadic communication in the trust game. Rationality and Society, 22(1), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lodge, M., & Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Loewen, P. J. (2010). Affinity, antipathy and political participation: How our concern for others makes us vote. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(3), 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., David, B., & Wetherell, M. S. (1992). Group polarization as conformity to the prototypical group member. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miller, A. S., & Mitamura, T. (2003). Are surveys on trust trustworthy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(1), 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mondak, J. T. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2008). Experimentation in political science. In J. Box-Steffensmeier, D. Collier, & H. Brady (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 339–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Nannestad, P. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 254–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Popkin, S. L. (1994). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  89. Rahn, W. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Renno, L., & Castro, H. (2009). Assessing the validity and reliability of interpersonal trust measures in cross-national surveys. Latin American Public Opinion Project Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  91. Roth, A. E., & Rothblum, U. G. (1982). Risk aversion and nash’s solution for bargaining games with risky outcomes. Econometrica, 50(3), 639–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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
  94. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Science. (2005). What we don’t know. Special Section, pp. 75–102.Google Scholar
  96. Seabright, P. (2010). The company of strangers. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  98. Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–78). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  99. Turner, J. (2007). The messenger overwhelming the message: Ideological cues and perceptions of bias in television news. Political Behavior, 29, 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  101. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Van Den Bos, W., Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Crone, E. A. (2009). What motivates repayment? Neural correlates of reciprocity in the trust game. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 4(3), 294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MississippiUniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations