This research examines one mechanism by which people decide whether to trust strangers. Using a laboratory setting that provides subjects with controlled information about their counterparts, we test whether attractive subjects gain a “beauty premium” in a game involving trust and reciprocity. Attractive trustees are viewed as more trustworthy; they are trusted at higher rates and as a consequence earn more in the first stage of the game. Attractiveness does not guarantee higher earnings, as we find a “beauty penalty” attached to attractive trusters in the second stage of the game. This penalty arises because attractive trusters do not live up to expectations of them on the part of the trustees. Trustees withhold repayment when their expectations are dashed. `This punishment is larger when the disappointing truster is attractive.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andreoni, James, and Ragan Petrie. 2004. “Public Goods Experiments without Confidentiality: A Glimpse into Fund-Raising.”Journal of Public Economics88 (7-8): 1605-1623.
2.
Bahry, Donna, and Rick K. Wilson. 2004. “Trust in Transitional Societies: Experimental Results from Russia.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Asssociation, Chicago.
3.
Berg, Joyce E., John W. Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe. 1995. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.”Games and Economic Behavior10 (1): 122-142.
4.
Berry, Diane S.2000. “Attractiveness, Attraction, and Sexual Selection: Evolutionary Perspectives on the Form and Function of Physical Attractiveness.” In M. P. Zanna, ed., Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, pp. 273-342. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
Bianco, William T.1998. “Different Paths to the Same Result: Rational Choice, Political Psychology, and Impression Formation in Campaigns.”American Journal of Political Science42 (2): 1061-1081.
6.
Bianco, William T.1994. Trust: Representatives and Constituents, Michigan Studies in Political Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
7.
Biddle, Jeff, and Daniel Hamermesh. 1998.”Beauty, Productivity and Discrimination: Lawyers’ Looks and Lucre.”Journal of Labor Economics16: 172-201.
8.
Buchan, Nancy R., Rachel T. A. Croson, and Robyn M. Dawes. 2002. “Swift Neighbors and Persistent Strangers: A Cross-Cultural Investigation of Trust and Reciprocity in Social Exchange.”American Journal of Sociology108 (1): 168-206.
9.
Burnham, Terence C.2003. “Engineering Altruism: A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Anonymity and Gift Giving.”Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization50 (1): 133-144.
10.
Burns, Justine. 2003. “Insider-Outsider Distinctions in South Africa: The Impact of Race on the Behaviour of High School Students.” Paper presented at the Conference on Field Experiments in Economics, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT, April 25-27.
11.
Camerer, Colin F.1997. “Progress in Behavioral Game Theory.”Journal of Economic Perspectives11 (4): 167-188.
12.
Camerer, Colin F.2003. “Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction.” In Colin F. Camerer and Ernest Fehr, eds., Roundtable Series in Behavioral Economics. New York: Sage, and Princeton University Press.
13.
Chaudhuri, Ananish, and Lata Gangadharan. 2002. “Gender Differences in Trust and Reciprocity.” Paper presented at the American Economic Association Meetings. Atlanta, GA.
14.
Coleman, James S.1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.”American Journal of Sociology94SupplementS95-S120.
15.
Croson, Rachel, and N. Buchan. 1999. “Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games.”American Economic Review89 (2): 386-391.
16.
Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. 1988. “Homicide.” For Foundations of Human Behavior. New York: de Gruyter.
17.
Eagly, A. H., R. D. Ashmore, M. G. Makhijani, and L. C. Longo. 1991. “What Is Beautiful Is Good, But: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype.”Psychological Bulletin110: 109-128.
18.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2003a. Conditional Trust: Sex, Race, and Facial Expressions in a Trust Game. Paper presented at the Trust and Institutions, Harvard University, April 24-26.
19.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2003b. “The Human Face of Game Theory.” In Elinor Ostrom and James M. Walker, eds., Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research, pp. 245-274. New York: Sage.
20.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2004. “Is Trust a Risky Decision?”Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization55 (4): 447-466.
21.
Eckel, Catherine C., and Rick K. Wilson. 2006. “Internet Cautions: Experimental Games with Internet Partners.”Experimental Economics9 (1): 53-66.
22.
Ekman, Paul. 2003. “Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life.”Times Books. New York: Henry Holt.
23.
Feingold, Alan. 1992. “Good-Looking People Are Not What We Think.”Psychological Bulletin111 (2): 304-341.
24.
Fenno, Richard F., Jr.1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
25.
Fershtman, Chaim, and Uri A. Gneezy. 2001. “Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach.”Quarterly Journal of Economics116 (1): 351-377.
26.
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.”American Journal of Sociology91 (3): 481-510.
27.
Hamermesh, Daniel, and Jeff Biddle. 1994. “Beauty and the Labor Market.”American Economic Review84: 1174-1194.
28.
Hardin, Russell. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Sage.
29.
Hayashi, N., E. Ostrom, J. Walker, and T. Yamagishi. 1999. “Reciprocity, Trust, and the Sense of Control—a Cross-Societal Study.”Rationality and Society11 (1): 27-46.
30.
Holt, Charles A., and Susan K. Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.”American Economic Review92 (5): 1644-1655.
31.
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 1999. Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection. New York: Pantheon.
32.
Jackson, Linda A., John E. Hunter, and Carole N. Hodge. 1995. “Physical Attractiveness and Intellectual Competence: A Meta-Analytic Review.”Social Psychology Quarterly58: 108-122.
33.
Karlan, Dean. 2003. Using Experimental Economics to Measure Social Capital and Predict Financial Decisions. Paper presented at the Conference on Field Experiments in Economics, Middlebury College, April 25-27.
34.
Koford, Kenneth.2001. Cooperation in Horizontal and Vertical Relationships: Bulgaria and the West. Paper presented at the 20th Arne Ryde Symposium on Experimental Economics, Lund, Sweden, November 9-11.
35.
Langlois, Judith H., Lisa Klakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica Hallam, and Monica Smoot. 2000. “Maxims or Myths of Beauty? A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Review.”Psychological Bulletin126 (3): 390-423.
36.
Levi, Margaret, and Laura Stoker. 2000. “Political Trust and Trustworthiness.”Annual Review of Political Science3 (1): 475-507.
37.
Loewenstein, George, Ted O’Donoghue, and Matthew Rabin. 2003. “Projection Bias in Predicting Future Utility.”Quarterly Journal of Economics118 (4): 1209-1248.
38.
Mobius, Markus M., and Tanya S. Rosenblat. 2006. “Why Beauty Matters.”American Economic Review96: 222-235.
39.
Mueller, Ulrich, and Allan Mazur. 1996. “Facial Dominance of West Point Cadets as a Predictor of Later Military Rank.”Social Forces74: 823-850.
40.
Mulford, Matthew, John Orbell, Catherine Shatto, and Jean Stockard. 1998. “Physical Attractiveness, Opportunity, and Success in Everyday Exchange.”American Journal of Sociology103 (6): 1565-1592.
41.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action.”American Political Science Review92 (1): 1-22.
42.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Ostrom, Elinor, and James M. Walker, eds. 2003. Trust and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research. New York: Sage.
44.
Ottati, Victor C., and Megan Deiger. 2002. “Visual Cues and the Candidate Evaluation Process.” In Victor C. Ottati, R. Scott Tindale, eds., Social Psychology of Politics, pp. 75-87. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
45.
Putnam, Robert D.2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
46.
Rabin, Matthew. 1993. “Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics.”American Economic Review83 (5): 1281-1302.
47.
Rabin, Matthew. 1998. “Psychology and Economics.”Journal of Economic Literature36 (1): 11-46.
48.
Rhodes, Gillian, Fiona Proffitt, Jonathon M. Grady, and Alex Sumich. 1998. “Facial Symmetry and the Perception of Beauty.”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review5 (4): 659-669.
49.
Rhodes, Gillian, Sakiko Yoshikawa, Alison Clark, Kieran Lee, Ryan McKay, and Shigeru Akamatsu. 2001. “Attractiveness of Facial Averageness and Symmetry in Non-Western Cultures: In Search of Biologically Based Standards of Beauty.”Perception30 (5): 611-625.
50.
Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. 2004. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
Scharlemann, Jorn P. W., Catherine C. Eckel, Alex Kacelnik, and Rick K. Wilson. 2001. “Value of a Smile: Game Theory with a Human Face.”Journal of Economic Psychology22 (5): 617-640.
52.
Singh, Devendra. 1992. “Body Shape and Women’s Attractiveness: The Critical Role of Waist-to-Hip Ratio.”Human Nature4 (3): 297-321.
53.
Singh, Devendra, and Suwardi Luis. 1995. “Ethnic and Gender Consensus for the Effect of Waist-to-Hip Ratio on Judgment of Women’s Attractiveness.”Human Nature6 (1): 51-65.
54.
Solnick, Sara J., and Maurice E. Schweitzer. 1992. “Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes79 (3): 199-215.
55.
Streeter, Sybil A., and Donald H. McBurney. 2003. “Waist-Hip Ratio and Attractiveness: New Evidence and a Critique of a ‘Critical Test’.”Evolution & Human Behavior24 (2): 88-98.
56.
Uslaner, Eric M.2002. The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Valentine, Tim, Stephen Darling, and Mary Donnelly. 2004. “Why Are Average Faces Attractive? The Effect of View and Averageness on the Attractiveness of Female Faces.”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11 (3): 482-487.
58.
Webster, Murray, and James E. Driskell. 1983. “Beauty as Status.”American Journal of Sociology89 (1): 140-165.
59.
Yamagishi, Toshio, Karen Cook, and Motoki Watabe. 1998. “Uncertainty, Trust, and Commitment Formation in the United States and Japan.”American Journal of Sociology104 (1): 165-194.
60.
Zebrowitz, Leslie A., and Gillian Rhodes. 2004. “Sensitivity to ‘Bad Genes’ and the Anomalous Face Overgeneralization Effect: Cue Validity, Cue Utilization, and Accuracy in Judging Intelligence and Health.”Journal of Nonverbal Behavior28 (3): 167-185.
61.
Zuckerman, Marvin. 1994. Behavioral Expression and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
