IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v63y2010i3p241-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trust and reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran
  • Mestelman, Stuart
  • Nainar, S.M. Khalid
  • Shehata, Mohamed

Abstract

This paper uses data from a controlled laboratory environment to study the impact of transparency (i.e., complete information versus incomplete information) and repeated interactions on the level of trust and trustworthiness (reciprocity) in an investment game setting. The key findings of the study are that transparency (complete information) significantly increases trusting behavior in one-shot interactions. This result persists in repeated interactions. Further, transparency appears important for trustworthiness in one-shot interactions. In addition, repeated interaction increases trust and reciprocity with or without transparency. These results suggest that transparency is important in building trust in business environments such as alliances and joint ventures which are loosely connected organizational forms that bring together otherwise independent firms. It also provides support for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and similar legislation elsewhere which attempt to regain investors' trust in corporate management and financial markets by stipulating enhanced disclosures.

Suggested Citation

  • Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2010. "Trust and reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 241-247, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:63:y:2010:i:3:p:241-247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148-2963(09)00067-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kreps, David M. & Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 245-252, August.
    2. Anderhub, Vital & Engelmann, Dirk & Guth, Werner, 2002. "An experimental study of the repeated trust game with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 197-216, June.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & Eric Maskin, 2008. "The Folk Theorem In Repeated Games With Discounting Or With Incomplete Information," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 11, pages 209-230, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Drew Fudenberg & David K. Levine, 2008. "Maintaining a Reputation when Strategies are Imperfectly Observed," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine (ed.), A Long-Run Collaboration On Long-Run Games, chapter 8, pages 143-161, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. James C. Cox, 2007. "Trust, Fear, Reciprocity, and Altruism: Theory and Experiment," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Sobei Hidenori Oda (ed.), Developments on Experimental Economics, pages 75-90, Springer.
    6. Cripps, Martin W. & Mailath, George J. & Samuelson, Larry, 2007. "Disappearing private reputations in long-run relationships," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 287-316, May.
    7. James Cox & Klarita Sadiraj & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2008. "Implications of trust, fear, and reciprocity for modeling economic behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-24, March.
    8. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "When Are Women More Generous than Men?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 587-598, October.
    9. Giorgio Coricelli & Luis González Morales & Amelie Mahlstedt, 2006. "The Investment Game With Asymmetric Information," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 13-30, February.
    10. Lui, Steven S. & Ngo, Hang-yue & Hon, Alice H.Y., 2006. "Coercive strategy in interfirm cooperation: Mediating roles of interpersonal and interorganizational trust," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 466-474, April.
    11. Brandts, Jordi & Figueras, Neus, 2003. "An exploration of reputation formation in experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 89-115, January.
    12. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    13. Yilmaz, Cengiz & Kabadayi, Ebru Tumer, 2006. "The role of monitoring in interfirm exchange: Effects on partner unilateral cooperation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(12), pages 1231-1238, November.
    14. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2006. "Assigning Intentions when Actions Are Unobservable: The Impact of Trembling in the Trust Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(2), pages 307-314, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Johnson, Devon & Grayson, Kent, 2005. "Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 500-507, April.
    17. Church, Bryan & Gaa, James C. & Khalid Nainar, S. M. & Shehata, Mohamed M., 2005. "Experimental Evidence Relating to the Person-Situation Interactionist Model of Ethical Decision Making," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 363-383, July.
    18. Bohnet, Iris & Huck, Steffen, 2003. "Repetition and Reputation: Implications for Trust and Trustworthiness in the Short and in the Long Run," Working Paper Series rwp03-048, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    19. Rohm, Andrew J. & Milne, George R., 2004. "Just what the doctor ordered: The role of information sensitivity and trust in reducing medical information privacy concern," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1000-1011, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Khalid Nainar, S.M. & Shehata, Mohamed, 2012. "The impact of empowering investors on trust and trustworthiness," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 566-577.
    2. Gomaa, Mohamed & Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Shehata, Mohamed, 2015. "Exercising empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 33-41.
    3. Shiv Ratan Agrawal & Divya Mittal, 2019. "How Does Transparency Complement Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in the Restaurant Business?," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 20(6), pages 1423-1444, December.
    4. Appelbaum, Elie & Katz, Eliakim, 2022. "Bonding by guilt: A resolution of the finite horizon prisoners’ dilemma," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Donkor, Emmanuel & Mbeche, Robert & Mithofer, Dagmar, 2021. "Relational contract decision of retailers in the grasshopper value chain in Uganda," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317078, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Tim Kraft & León Valdés & Yanchong Zheng, 2018. "Supply Chain Visibility and Social Responsibility: Investigating Consumers’ Behaviors and Motives," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 617-636, October.
    7. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2014. "Transparency and empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 2030-2038.
    8. Mittal, Divya & Agrawal, Shiv Ratan, 2016. "Price transparency reflects assurance and reliability," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 43-51.
    9. Donkor, Emmanuel & Mbeche, Robert & Mithöfer, Dagmar, 2021. "Purchasing Behaviour and Relational Contract Decisions of Retailers in Grasshopper Value Chains in Uganda," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315105, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Tessa Haesevoets & David De Cremer & Leander De Schutter & Jack McGuire & Yu Yang & Xie Jian & Alain Van Hiel, 2021. "Transparency and Control in Email Communication: The More the Supervisor is Put in cc the Less Trust is Felt," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(4), pages 733-753, February.

    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. Kiridaran Kanagaretnam & Stuart Mestelman & S. M. Khalid Nainar & Mohamed Shehata, 2012. "Trust and Reciprocity, Empowerment and Transparency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2012-12, McMaster University.
    2. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Khalid Nainar, S.M. & Shehata, Mohamed, 2012. "The impact of empowering investors on trust and trustworthiness," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 566-577.
    3. Kartal, Melis & Müller, Wieland & Tremewan, James, 2021. "Building trust: The costs and benefits of gradualism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 258-275.
    4. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    5. Di Bartolomeo Giovanni & Papa Stefano, 2012. "The triadic design to identify trust and reciprocity: Extensions and robustness," wp.comunite 0096, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    6. Dimitri Dubois & Marc Willinger, 2007. "The role of players’ identification in the population on the trusting and the trustworthy behavior an experimental investigation," Working Papers 07-06, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Jun 2007.
    7. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, S.M. Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2014. "Transparency and empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 2030-2038.
    8. 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.
    9. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    10. Bracht, Juergen & Feltovich, Nick, 2009. "Whatever you say, your reputation precedes you: Observation and cheap talk in the trust game," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(9-10), pages 1036-1044, October.
    11. Attanasi, Giuseppe & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Manzoni, Elena & Nagel, Rosemarie, 2019. "Belief-dependent preferences and reputation: Experimental analysis of a repeated trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 341-360.
    12. Hiromasa Takahashi & Junyi Shen & Kazuhito Ogawa, 2020. "Gender-specific reference-dependent preferences in the experimental trust game," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 25-38, January.
    13. Lisa R. Anderson & Jennifer M. Mellor & Jeffrey Milyo, 2005. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of Inequality and Relative Deprivation on Trusting Behavior," Working Papers 14, Department of Economics, College of William and Mary.
    14. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2016. "Does strategic kindness crowd out prosocial behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 1-11.
    15. Charness, Gary & Kuhn, Peter, 2011. "Lab Labor: What Can Labor Economists Learn from the Lab?," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 3, pages 229-330, Elsevier.
    16. Cochard, Francois & Nguyen Van, Phu & Willinger, Marc, 2004. "Trusting behavior in a repeated investment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 31-44, September.
    17. Mailath, George J. & Samuelson, Larry, 2015. "Reputations in Repeated Games," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    18. Gomaa, Mohamed & Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Shehata, Mohamed, 2015. "Exercising empowerment in an investment environment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 33-41.
    19. Bonein, Aurélie & Serra, Daniel, 2009. "Gender pairing bias in trustworthiness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 779-789, October.
    20. Cox, James C. & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Neururer, Daniel, 2016. "What is trustworthiness and what drives it?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 197-218.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Transparency Trust Reciprocity Repeated interaction Business alliances SOX;

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    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:eee:jbrese:v:63:y:2010:i:3:p:241-247. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.