IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v106y2023ics2214804323000873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In transparency we trust an experimental study of reputation, transparency, and signaling

Author

Listed:
  • Borzino, Natalia
  • Fatas, Enrique
  • Peterle, Emmanuel

Abstract

We study transparency and reputation in a stylized investment game in which two senders interact with a receiver in a linear network with partial information. We analyze how ex-ante information (compatible with receiver's reputation building) and ex-post information (making the receiver's decisions transparent) affect behavior in the trust game. In the Reputation treatment, senders know the average amount returned by the receiver to senders in the previous period, but not the actions of those senders. In the Transparency treatment, senders are aware of the amount received by the other sender, but not the action of this other sender. Relative to a Baseline treatment in which senders are only informed about their own actions and outcomes, ex-ante and ex-post information disclosure have very different effects. While reputation helps some receivers, aggregate trust does not significantly increase in the Reputation condition. Transparency generates a large and significant increase in trust (amounts sent are 27% above the ones chosen in Reputation), being the effect largely driven by a sustained and large reduction of senders choosing not to trust at all (56% less in Transparency than in Reputation in the second half of the experiment). Our design also introduces a non-binding recommendation for both senders and receivers. Across all treatments and roles, this recommendation significantly and positively shapes individual decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Borzino, Natalia & Fatas, Enrique & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2023. "In transparency we trust an experimental study of reputation, transparency, and signaling," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000873
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.102061
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323000873
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.102061?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2016. "When should the ask be a nudge? The Effect of Default Amounts on Charitable Donations," Natural Field Experiments 00659, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Xinyu Fan & Feng Yang, 2019. "Strategic promotion, reputation, and responsiveness in bureaucratic hierarchies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 31(3), pages 286-307, July.
    3. Francesco Fallucchi & Enrique Fatas & Felix Kölle & Ori Weisel, 2021. "Not all group members are created equal: heterogeneous abilities in inter-group contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 669-697, June.
    4. Alm, James & Cherry, Todd & Jones, Michael & McKee, Michael, 2010. "Taxpayer information assistance services and tax compliance behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 577-586, August.
    5. Brown, Sarah & Gray, Daniel & McHardy, Jolian & Taylor, Karl, 2015. "Employee trust and workplace performance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 361-378.
    6. Butz, Britta & Harbring, Christine, 2020. "Donations as an incentive for cooperation in public good games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Espinosa, María Paz & Fatás, Enrique & Ubeda, Paloma, 2019. "Linguistic diversity and out-group discrimination in bilingual societies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 102-127.
    8. Enrique Fatas & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez & Hector Solaz, 2010. "An experimental analysis of team production in networks," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 399-411, December.
    9. Cristina Bicchieri & Enrique Fatas & Abraham Aldama & Andrés Casas & Ishwari Deshpande & Mariagiulia Lauro & Cristina Parilli & Max Spohn & Paula Pereira & Ruiling Wen, 2021. "In science we (should) trust: Expectations and compliance across nine countries during the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Edwards, James T. & List, John A., 2014. "Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-13.
    11. Dezső, Linda & Alm, James & Kirchler, Erich, 2022. "Inequitable wages and tax evasion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Eckel, Catherine C. & Fatas, Enrique & Kass, Malcolm, 2022. "Sacrifice: An experiment on the political economy of extreme intergroup punishment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Dezső, Linda & Loewenstein, George & Steinhart, Jonathan & Neszveda, Gábor & Szászi, Barnabás, 2015. "The pernicious role of asymmetric history in negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 430-438.
    14. Iris Bohnet & Steffen Huck, 2004. "Repetition and Reputation: Implications for Trust and Trustworthiness When Institutions Change," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 362-366, May.
    15. McCabe, Kevin A. & Rigdon, Mary L. & Smith, Vernon L., 2003. "Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 267-275, October.
    16. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    17. Kasper, Matthias & Kogler, Christoph & Kirchler, Erich, 2015. "Tax policy and the news: An empirical analysis of taxpayers’ perceptions of tax-related media coverage and its impact on tax compliance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 58-63.
    18. Gobena, Lemessa Bayissa & Van Dijke, Marius, 2017. "Fear and caring: Procedural justice, trust, and collective identification as antecedents of voluntary tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-16.
    19. Fatas, Enrique & Hargreaves Heap, Shaun P. & Rojo Arjona, David, 2018. "Preference conformism: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 71-82.
    20. Enrique Fatas & Miguel A. Meléndez‐Jiménez & Hector Solaz, 2020. "Social Hierarchies: A Laboratory Study On Punishment Patterns Across Networks," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(1), pages 104-119, January.
    21. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    22. David Reiley & Anya Samek, 2019. "Round Giving: A Field Experiment On Suggested Donation Amounts In Public‐Television Fundraising," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(2), pages 876-889, April.
    23. Cassar, Alessandra & Rigdon, Mary, 2011. "Trust and trustworthiness in networked exchange," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 282-303, March.
    24. Charness, Gary & Cheung, Tsz, 2013. "A restaurant field experiment in charitable contributions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(1), pages 48-49.
    25. Enrique Fatas & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez & Antonio Morales & Hector Solaz, 2015. "Public goods and decay in networks," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 73-90, March.
    26. Catherine C. Eckel & Enrique Fatas & Rick Wilson, 2010. "Cooperation and Status in Organizations," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 12(4), pages 737-762, August.
    27. Keefer, Philip & Scartascini, Carlos, 2022. "Trust: The Key to Social Cohesion and Growth in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Books), Inter-American Development Bank, number 11771, November.
    28. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    29. Restrepo-Plaza, Lina & Fatas, Enrique, 2022. "When ingroup favoritism is not the social norm a lab-in-the-field experiment with victims and non-victims of conflict in Colombia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 363-383.
    30. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. José Gabriel Castillo & Zhicheng Phil Xu & Ping Zhang & Xianchen Zhu, 2021. "The effects of centralized power and institutional legitimacy on collective action," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 385-419, February.
    2. Diederich, Johannes & Epperson, Raphael & Goeschl, Timo, 2021. "How to Design the Ask? Funding Units vs. Giving Money," Working Papers 0698, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    3. Bauernschuster, Stefan & Falck, Oliver & Große, Niels, 2013. "When trustors compete for the favour of a trustee – A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 133-147.
    4. Sudbury, Adrienne W. & Vossler, Christian A., 2022. "Checking out checkout charity: A study of point-of-sale donation campaigns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 252-270.
    5. Koessler, Ann-Kathrin & Müller, Julia & Zitzelsberger, Sonja, 2023. "Asymmetric heterogeneities and the role of transfers in a public goods experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    6. Aidin Hajikhameneh & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2019. "Individualism, collectivism, and trade," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 294-324, June.
    7. M. Bigoni & S. Bortolotti & M. Casari & D. Gambetta, 2012. "Trustworthy by Convention," Working Papers wp827, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Fabio Galeotti & Daniel Zizzo, 2014. "What happens if you single out? An experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 43(3), pages 703-729, October.
    9. Federica Alberti & Anna Conte & Daniela T. Di Cagno & Emanuela Sciubba, 2020. "How do we choose whom to trust? The effect of social networks on trust," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2020-02, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    10. Stefan Bauernschuster & Oliver Falck & Niels Große, 2010. "Can Competition Spoil Reciprocity? - A Laboratory Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 2923, CESifo.
    11. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    12. Johnsen, Åshild A & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "You always meet twice: An experiment on intrinsic versus instrumental reciprocity," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2014/2, University of Stavanger.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Glogowsky, Ulrich & Cagala, Tobias & Rincke, Johannes & Grimm, Veronika, 2014. "Cooperation and Trustworthiness in Repeated Interaction," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100437, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Fehr, Dietmar & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "Gossip and the efficiency of interactions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 448-460.
    17. David Reiley & Anya Samek, 2019. "Round Giving: A Field Experiment On Suggested Donation Amounts In Public‐Television Fundraising," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(2), pages 876-889, April.
    18. Steffen Altmann & Armin Falk & Paul Heidhues & Rajshri Jayaraman & Marrit Teirlinck, 2019. "Defaults and Donations: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(5), pages 808-826, December.
    19. Karakostas, Alexandros & Kocher, Martin G. & Matzat, Dominik & Rau, Holger A. & Riewe, Gerhard, 2023. "The team allocator game: Allocation power in public goods games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 73-87.
    20. Keser, Claudia & Späth, Maximilian, 2021. "The value of bad ratings: An experiment on the impact of distortions in reputation systems," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information disclosure; Transparency; Reputation; Signaling; Trust in triad; Social networks; Investment game; Embeddedness trust;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles

    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:soceco:v:106:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000873. 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/inca/620175 .

    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.