We report the experimental results from a trust game that was played between friends and strangers. We invited subjects to the laboratory in groups of four friends, who were then assigned across different groups. Some groups of friends stayed together; others were mixed with strangers within their own group or in the opponent group; and some were in pairs of groups where everyone was a stranger to each other. Our results confirm the finding from the previous studies that a pair of friends is more willing to reciprocate a transfer from their friends than from a pair of strangers. We also show that trust and trustworthiness are undermined if the decision is made by a mixed group when compared to a group of friends who only have one friend in the other group. In general, our results suggest that the existence of between-group social ties is insufficient to build trust and trustworthiness. By revealing to a player that their co-player has a friend in the opponent, their group significantly increases trust but not trustworthiness.
AbbinkK., IrlenbuschB., & RennerE. (2006). Group size and social ties in microfinance institutions. Economic Inquiry, 44(4), 614–628. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cb1001
BinzelC., & FehrD. (2009). How social distance affects trust and cooperation: Experimental evidence from a slum. Proc. of ERF.
4.
BinzelC., & FehrD. (2013). Social distance and trust: Experimental evidence from a slum in Cairo. Journal of Development Economics, 103, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.01.009
5.
Branas-GarzaP., Cobo-ReyesR., EspinosaM. P., JiménezN., KováříkJ., & PontiG. (2010). Altruism and social integration. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2009.10.014
6.
ChandrasekharA. G., KinnanC., & LarreguyH. (2018). Social networks as contract enforcement: Evidence from a lab experiment in the field. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(4), 43–78. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150057
7.
CoxJ. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity, and other-regarding preferences: Groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. In Experimental business research (pp. 331–350). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5196-3_14
8.
DasT. K., & TengB. S. (2001). Trust, control, and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222004
EtangA., FieldingD., & KnowlesS. (2011). Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9255-3
11.
FehrE., GächterS., & KirchsteigerG. (1997). Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental evidence. Econometrica, 833–860. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171941
FoddyM., PlatowM. J., & YamagishiT. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20(4), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x
14.
FukuyamaF. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Simon and Schuster.
15.
GlaeserE. L., LaibsonD. I., ScheinkmanJ. A., & SoutterC. L. (2000). Measuring trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926
16.
GoereeJ. K., McConnellM. A., MitchellT., TrompT., & YarivL. (2010). The 1/d law of giving. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.2.1.183
17.
GranovetterM. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051
18.
GreinerB. (2004). An online recruitment system for economic experiments. https://ben.orsee.org/papers/orsee_billing.pdf
19.
GüthW., LevatiM. V., & PlonerM. (2008). Social identity and trust—An experimental investigation. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(4), 1293–1308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.080
20.
HardinR. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. Russell Sage Foundation.
21.
JacksonM. O., Rodriguez-BarraquerT., & TanX. (2012). Social capital and social quilts: Network patterns of favor exchange. American Economic Review, 102(5), 1857–1897. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.1857
22.
Johansson-StenmanO. L. O. F., MahmudM., & MartinssonP. (2009). Trust and religion: Experimental evidence from rural Bangladesh. Economica, 76(303), 462–485. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2008.00689.x
23.
JohnsonN. D., & MislinA. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007
24.
KuglerT., BornsteinG., KocherM. G., & SutterM. (2007). Trust between individuals and groups: Groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(6), 646–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.12.00
25.
KuglerT., KauselE. E., & KocherM. G. (2012). Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3(4), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1184
26.
LeiderS., MöbiusM. M., RosenblatT., & DoQ. A. (2009). Directed altruism and enforced reciprocity in social networks. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1815–1851. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1815
27.
LigonE., & SchechterL. (2012). Motives for sharing in social networks. Journal of Development Economics, 99(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.12.002
28.
McLainD. L., & HackmanK. (1999). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational change. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 152–176.
29.
MondakJ. J., & MutzD. C. (2001, April). Involuntary association: How the workplace contributes to American civic life. In Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
30.
MunshiK., & BanerjeeA. V. (2006). Nonmarket institutions. In BanerjeeA. V., BénabouR., & MookherjeeD. (Eds.), Understanding poverty (pp. 389–399). Oxford University Press.
31.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
32.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
33.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
34.
ReubenE., & van WindenF. (2008). Social ties and coordination on negative reciprocity: The role of affect. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.012
35.
RuschH. (2014). The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: A review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1794), 20141539. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1539
36.
ScholzJ. T., & LubellM. (1998a). Adaptive political attitudes: Duty, trust, and fear as monitors of tax policy. American Journal of Political Science, 903–920. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991734
37.
ScholzJ. T., & LubellM. (1998b). Trust and taxpaying: Testing the heuristic approach to collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 398–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991764
38.
SongF. (2008). Trust and reciprocity behavior and behavioral forecasts: Individuals versus group-representatives. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(2), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.002
39.
SongF. (2009). Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: Effects of group decision-making mechanisms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.06.005
40.
TanisM., & PostmesT. (2005). A social identity approach to trust: Interpersonal perception, group membership and trusting behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.256
41.
ZakP. J., & KnackS. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111(470), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00609
