We study the behavioral consequences of interpersonal communication prior to experimental Trust games. We manipulated the richness of the communication medium and the size of the communicating group. Communication richness failed to produce significant differences in first-mover investments, but the size of the communicating group did: The amounts sent were significantly higher in the dyadic communication conditions than in the group communication and no-communication conditions. We also found that first-movers’ expectations of secondmovers’ reciprocation strongly predicted their levels of investment.
Ben-Ner, A. and L. Putterman.2006. ‘Trust, Communication and Contracts: Experimental Evidence.’ Working Papers 2006-23, Brown University, Department of Economics.
2.
Bicchieri, C.2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Bicchieri, C. and A. Lev-On.2007. ‘Computer-Mediated Communication and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: An Experimental Analysis.’ Politics, Philosophy and Economics6: 139-168.
4.
Bicchieri, C., A. Lev-On and A. Chavez.2009. ‘The Medium or the Message? Communication Richness and Relevance in Trust Games.’ Forthcoming in Synthese.
5.
Bochet, O., T. Page and L. Putterman.2006. ‘Communication and Punishment in Voluntary Contribution Experiments.’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization60: 11-26.
6.
Bos, N., D. Gergle, J.S. Olson, and G.M. Olson.2001. ‘Being There versus Seeing There: Trust via Video.’ Proceedings of CHI 2001: 291-292. New York: ACM Press .
7.
Brosig, J., A. Ockenfels and J. Weimann.2003. ‘The Effect of Communication Media on Cooperation .’ German Economic Review4: 217-241.
8.
Dawes, R.M., A.J.C. Van de Kragt and J.M. Orbell.1990. ‘Cooperation for the Benefit of Us - Not Me, or My Conscience.’ In Beyond Self-Interest, ed. J. J. Mansbridge, pp. 97-110. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
9.
Franzen, A.1994. ‘Group Size Effects in Social Dilemmas: A Review of the Experimental Literature and some New Results for One-Shot N-PD Games.’ In Social Dilemmas and Cooperation, eds. U. Schulz, W. Albers and U. Mueller, pp. 117-146. Berlin : Springer-Verlag.
10.
Franzen, A.1995. ‘Group Size and One-Shot Collective Action . ’ Rationality and Society7: 183-200.
11.
Frohlich, N. and J. Oppenheimer.1998. ‘Some Consequences of E-mail vs. Face to Face Communication in Experiments.’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization35: 389-403.
12.
Hardin, R.1982. Collective Action. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Ledyard, J.O.1995. ‘Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research.’ In Handbook of Experimental Economics, eds. J. H. Kagel and A. E. Roth, pp. 111-194. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Olson, M.1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
Ostrom, E.1998. ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action - Presidential Address of the American Political Science Association 1997.’ American Political Science Review92: 1-22.
16.
Rocco, E.1998. ‘Trust Breaks Down in Electronic Contexts but can be Repaired by some Initial Face-to-Face Contact.’ Proceedings of CHI 1998: 496-502. New York: ACM Press.
17.
Sally, D.1995. ‘Conversation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas .’ Rationality and Society7: 58-92.
18.
Shankar, A. and C. Pavitt.2002. ‘Resource and Public Goods Dilemmas: A New Issue for Communication Research.’ Review of Communication2: 251-272.
19.
Zheng, J., E. Veinott, N. Bos, J.S. Olson and G.M. Olson.2002. ‘Trust without Touch: Jumpstarting Trust with Initial Social Activities.’ Proceedings of CHI 2002: 141-146. New York: ACM Press .
