Trust in triads: Experience effects

Investments in and returns on network embeddedness: An experiment with trust games

“…While changes in the probability of a friendly trustee had little impact on the behavior of trustors and opportunistic trustees in our experiment, Brandts and Figueras (2003) found the expected effects of changes in this probability. This discrepancy could reflect that participants played many more repeated games in the experiment of Brandts and Figueras (2003), as behavior tends to approach the sequential equilibrium with experience (Camerer and Weigelt, 1988;Neral and Ochs, 1992;Van Miltenburg et al, 2012). However, additional analyses of our data do also not reveal an inverted U-shape in the effect of embeddedness in games played toward the end of the sessions.…”

“…While several empirical studies support the hypothesis that embeddedness promotes trustfulness and trustworthiness (Bohnet and Huck, 2004;Bohnet et al, 2005;Bolton et al, 2004;Buskens et al, 2010;DiMaggio and Louch, 1998;Frey and Van de Rijt, 2016;Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999;Huck et al, 2010;Robinson and Stuart, 2007), a few studies find no effects of embeddedness on trust or related cooperative behaviors (Corten et al, 2016;Grujić et al, 2010;Huck et al, 2012;Van Miltenburg et al, 2012). In this paper we discuss an experiment that seeks to replicate the finding that embeddedness facilitates trust but also adds to the literature on trust and embeddedness in two further respects.…”

“…Empirical evidence for an inverted U-shape in the effects of embeddedness could help explain the finding that low-trustors tend to be more sensitive to embeddedness than high-trustors (Simpson and McGrimmon, 2008), and it would imply that findings of null effects of embeddedness should be interpreted with caution (see e.g., Corten et al, 2016;Huck et al, 2012;Van Miltenburg et al, 2012). Furthermore, it would suggest that ingroup favoritism may be strongest in trust problems of intermediate size, as it has been hypothesized that ingroup favoritism in trust situations reflects that networks that make reputational concerns relevant are present within groups but absent between groups (Yamagishi and Mifune, 2008).…”

Social Exchange Networks: A Review of Experimental Studies

“…Thus, Buskens et al (2010) attribute higher trustfulness to learning mechanisms rather than control mechanisms. In a subsequent experiment Van Miltenburg, Buskens, and Raub (2012) test whether more experience leads to network control effects of trustors over trustees and find a weak, but not entirely convincing network control effect for the trustor. The authors suggest that experience in general appears to result in behavior that is closer to the expected equilibrium model.…”

You are who your friends are?

“…In this case, he has to base his decision on his trust beliefs , that is, the subjective prior belief about the probability to meet a trustworthy trustee. In our context, it is important to notice that trust relations are usually embedded (Buskens and Weesie, 2000; Van Miltenburg et al., 2012). This is relevant for two reasons.…”