IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ssi/jouesi/v10y2022i2p81-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The trust dilemma - conclusions from a popular TV show

Author

Listed:
  • Paulina Malaczewska

    (University of Lodz, Poland)

  • Maciej Malaczewski

    (University of Lodz, Poland)

Abstract

Trust in co-workers and business partners is an essential factor influencing the effectiveness of the production processes of goods and services and cooperation in the market. In this paper, we analyse trust using data from a natural experiment - the Polish edition of the TV game show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?". We verify differences in trust between women and men, between urban and rural residents, and the case of low- and high-stake games. Trust was analysed in two ways—trust in a group of strangers and trust in a friend selected earlier. The test for two populations' proportions is conducted. Study shows that women have greater trust than men in the cases of both types of trust. This result is different from those reported in most experimental studies. Women are also more trusting than men in the case of low-stake games, while in the case of high-stake games, the gender difference is blurred. To our best knowledge, this is the first study to use data from a TV show to analyse trust so far.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulina Malaczewska & Maciej Malaczewski, 2022. "The trust dilemma - conclusions from a popular TV show," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 10(2), pages 81-92, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ssi:jouesi:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:81-92
    DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2022.10.2(5)
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jssidoi.org/jesi/uploads/articles/38/Malaczewska_The_trust_dilemma__conclusions_from_a_popular_TV_show.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://jssidoi.org/jesi/article/1013
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.9770/jesi.2022.10.2(5)?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 1998. "Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 726-735, May.
    2. Nancy Buchan & Rachel Croson, 1999. "Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 386-391, May.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of Economic Growth," Handbook of Economic Growth, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    4. Steven N. Durlauf, 2002. "On the Empirics of Social Capital," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(483), pages 459-479, November.
    5. Chou, Yuan K., 2006. "Three simple models of social capital and economic growth," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 889-912, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jun-ichi Itaya & Chris Tsoukis, 2017. "Social Capital and the Status Externality," CESifo Working Paper Series 6820, CESifo.
    2. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    3. Fernando Aguiar & Pablo Brañas-Garza & Ramón Cobo-Reyes & Natalia Jimenez & Luis Miller, 2009. "Are women expected to be more generous?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(1), pages 93-98, March.
    4. Schwieren, Christiane & Sutter, Matthias, 2008. "Trust in cooperation or ability? An experimental study on gender differences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 494-497, June.
    5. Jose Apesteguia & Ghazala Azmat & Nagore Iriberri, 2012. "The Impact of Gender Composition on Team Performance and Decision Making: Evidence from the Field," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 78-93, January.
    6. Forte, Anabel & Peiró-Palomino, Jesús & Tortosa-Ausina, Emili, 2015. "Does social capital matter for European regional growth?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 47-64.
    7. Heinz, Matthias & Juranek, Steffen & Rau, Holger A., 2012. "Do women behave more reciprocally than men? Gender differences in real effort dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 105-110.
    8. repec:tiu:tiucen:200457 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Janet Hua (duplicate record) Jiang & Peter Norman & Daniela Puzzello & Bruno Sultanum & Randall Wright, 2021. "Is Money Essential? An Experimental Approach," Working Paper 21-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.
    10. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Daniere, Amrita G. & Takahashi, Lois M., 2004. "Cooperation, trust, and social capital in Southeast Asian urban slums," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 533-551, December.
    11. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Civic Capital as the Missing Link," NBER Working Papers 15845, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Lorenzo Rocco & Elena Fumagalli & Marc Suhrcke, 2014. "From Social Capital To Health – And Back," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(5), pages 586-605, May.
    13. Becchetti, Leonardo & Conzo, Pierluigi, 2011. "Enhancing capabilities through credit access: Creditworthiness as a signal of trustworthiness under asymmetric information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3-4), pages 265-278, April.
    14. Castillo, Marco E. & Cross, Philip J., 2008. "Of mice and men: Within gender variation in strategic behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 421-432, November.
    15. Hasan, Hamid & Ejaz, Nauman, 2013. "Testing for Differences across Genders: A Replication of Ultimatum Game at International Islamic University, Islamabad," MPRA Paper 44923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Bellemare, Charles & Kroger, Sabine, 2007. "On representative social capital," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 183-202, January.
    17. Azmat, Ghazala & Petrongolo, Barbara, 2014. "Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-40.
    18. Håkan J. Holm & Paul Nystedt, 2010. "Collective Trust Behavior," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 112(1), pages 25-53, March.
    19. Semih Akçomak & Hanna Müller-Zick, 2013. "Trust and Innovation in Europe: Causal, spatial and non-linear forces," STPS Working Papers 1304, STPS - Science and Technology Policy Studies Center, Middle East Technical University, revised Dec 2013.
    20. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    21. Stefano Gagliarducci & M. Daniele Paserman, 2012. "Gender Interactions within Hierarchies: Evidence from the Political Arena," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(3), pages 1021-1052.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    natural experiment; trust; test for two populations' proportions; gender difference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ssi:jouesi:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:81-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Manuela Tvaronaviciene (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.