Identifying In-Group and Out-Group Effects in the Trust Game

Smith, Alexander

doi:10.2202/1935-1682.2878

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar dynamic is at play in the evolution of religious cooperation where rituals help identify cooperative groups on a large scale (Bulbulia & Sosis, 2011). In-group bias observed in social psychology is also consistent with the idea of identifying signals of group loyalty being a primary consideration in cooperative decisions, where in this case such identification leads to biases towards in-groups who exhibit common traits, than out-groups, regardless of the arbitrariness of these categorisations (Tajfel et al , 1971;Hewstone et al , 2002;Smith, 2011).…”

Section: Knowing Which Groups and Networksupporting

confidence: 67%

When reciprocity becomes back-scratching: an economic inquiry

Murray¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis reports four studies of a particular type of cooperation where the formation of coordinated groups through favour exchanges benefits the connected few at the expense of the many. This process is labelled back-scratching, and is a common feature of political decision-making where institutional powers allow for a large amount of discretion and the imposition of externalities in situations where property rights are not well-defined. Chapter 1 introduces the concept of back-scratching in as a coordination game with negative externalities, providing a common framework within which to incorporate the studies that follow.The first study in Chapter 2 uses a natural experiment to quantify the gains from back-scratching in political decisions about value-enhancing land zoning. The effectiveness of a variety methods used to support implicit favouritism are examined, including political donations, employing professional lobbyists, and investing in relationships. Using micro-level relationship data from multiple sources, characteristics of landowners of comparable sites inside and outside rezoned areas are compared. 'Connected' landowners owned 75% of land inside rezoned areas, and only 12% outside, and captured $410 million in value gains, indicating a trade in favours amongst connected insiders. Marginal gains to all landowners of connections in our sample were $190 million. Engaging a professional lobbyist appears to be a substitute for having one's own connections.

show abstract

Section: Knowing Which Groups and Networksupporting

confidence: 67%

When reciprocity becomes back-scratching: an economic inquiry

Murray¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this favoritism effect decreases but does not disappear when playing under an equitable endowment. Effects of group membership on trust were explored also by Smith (2011a) . He found that information about the identity of the other player had positive in-group and negative out-group effects on trust.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Inequality on Trust and Reciprocity: An Experiment With Real Effort

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is analyzing whether trust and reciprocity are affected by how rich the partner is or how well the partner performed several tasks with real effort. A trust game (TG) experiment is designed with three treatments. First, a baseline Treatment B in which subjects play a finitely repeated TG. Second, in a Treatment H with history, subjects know the partner’s wealth level reached in the past. Third, in a Treatment E with effort the individual endowment with which the TG is played is endogenous and results from the subject’s performance in three different real effort tasks (maths, cognitive and general knowledge related). The data analysis highlights the importance of past wealth levels (Treatment H) as well as endowment heterogeneity (Treatment E), on the actual levels of trust and reciprocity. Specifically, it is observed that the decision of trustors is positively affected by positive past experienced reciprocity. Moreover, trustors are sensitive to how much money the trustee accumulates each round in Treatment H, trusting more the ones that have accumulated less compared to themselves. In contrast with that, it is remarkable in Treatment E that trustors are sensitive to the endowment level of the trustees, trusting more the partners that have got a higher than own endowment, probably considering that a person that performed better in the tasks is a better partner to trust. As far as second players’ behavior, as the amount received from the trustor increases it is less likely that the trustee reciprocates with higher than or with the egalitarian amount. In Treatments H and E, the probability that the trustee reciprocates with higher amount that the one received increases when inequality in endowment/accumulated earnings favors the trustor. Additional results come from analysis of personality archetypes and socio-demographic variables.

show abstract

“…O jogador B agora é responsável por retornar ou não a quantidade que ele julga ser adequada. Smith (2011) utilizou o paradigma dos grupos mínimos e observou que indiví-duos confi aram mais naqueles pertencentes ao ingroup quando comparados com o outgroup durante o jogo da confi ança.…”

Section: Jogo Da Confi Ançaunclassified

In x out": revisando o viés de grupo através da perspectiva biológica

Shiramizu¹,

Yamamoto²

2017

Temas Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoOs fatores subjacentes ao favorecimento do endogrupo e de indiferença/hostilidade ao exogrupo são amplamente estudados pela psicologia social, onde estudos reportam que, por exemplo, indivíduos confi am mais e associam palavras positivas aos membros do mesmo grupo. O estudo desses fatores pode ajudar na compreensão de fenômenos tais como preconceito e etnocentrismo. As perspectivas evolucionista e neuroendócrina vêm sendo extremamente relevantes nos últimos anos para o estudo do favoritismo ingroup. Todavia, uma busca sistemática nas bases de dados Lilacs, Scielo, Google Scholar e Web of Science por palavras-chave relacionadas ao viés de grupo demonstrou uma carência por publicações nesse tema no Brasil. Dos trabalhos recuperados, apenas um se enquadrava na perspectiva evolucionista e nenhum abordava os mecanismos neuroendócrinos do viés de grupo. Dessa forma, o objetivo do presente estudo é discutir o viés de grupo através de uma perspectiva biológica, explicitando as hipóteses para a evolução desses comportamentos, os métodos empregados para o estudo dos mesmos e as bases neuroendócrinas e os substratos neurais que os medeiam. Palavras-chave:Favoritismo ingroup, teoria dos jogos, neuroendocrinologia, perspectiva evolucionista. "In x Out": Reviewing the Group Bias through the Biological Perspective AbstractThe factors underlying to the ingroup favoritism and outgroup indifference/hostility are broadly studied by social psychology, where studies report that, for example, individuals trust more and associate positive words to members of the same group. The study of these factors can help in understand phenomena such as prejudice and ethonocentrism. However, a systematic search in the databases Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scielo, and Lilacs for the keywords related to group bias showed a studies shortage for this topic in Brazil. Besides, in the studies retrieved, just one fi tted into evolutionary perspective and no study has approached the neuroendocrine mechanisms of the group bias. Therefore, the objective of this study was to discuss the group bias through the biological perspective, explaining the evolutionary hypothesis to the evolution of these behaviors, the methods applied to study this topic, and the neuroendocrine basis and neural substrates mediating them.

show abstract

Identifying In-Group and Out-Group Effects in the Trust Game

Cited by 7 publications

References 2 publications

When reciprocity becomes back-scratching: an economic inquiry

When reciprocity becomes back-scratching: an economic inquiry

Effects of Inequality on Trust and Reciprocity: An Experiment With Real Effort

In x out": revisando o viés de grupo através da perspectiva biológica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About