IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ebg/essewp/dr-10007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Trust and Financial Trades: Lessons from an Investment Game Where Reciprocators Can Hide Behind Probabilities

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In this paper we show that if a very small, exogenously given probability of terminating the exchange is introduced in an elementary investment game, reciprocators play more often the defection strategy. Everything happens as if they "hide behind probabilities" in order to break the trust relationship. Investors do no not seem able to internalize the reciprocators' change in behavior. This could explain why trades involving an exogenous risk of value destruction, such as financial transactions, provide an unfavorable environment for trust-building

Suggested Citation

  • Vranceanu, Radu & Sutan, Angela & Dubart, Delphine, 2010. "Trust and Financial Trades: Lessons from an Investment Game Where Reciprocators Can Hide Behind Probabilities," ESSEC Working Papers DR 10007, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebg:essewp:dr-10007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.essec.fr/faculty/showDeclFileRes.do?declId=9163&key=__workpaper__
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vranceanu, Radu & Laot, Maxime & Dubart, Delphine, 2010. "Une échelle de mesure de la connaissance en raisonnement économique et résultats d'une enquête menée en décembre 2009," ESSEC Working Papers DR 10001, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    2. Patricia Crifo & Nicolas Mottis, 2010. "SRI analysis and asset management : independent or convergent ? : A field study on the French market," Post-Print hal-00572379, HAL.
    3. Batista, Catia & Potin, Jacques, 2008. "International Specialization and the Return to Capital, 1976-2000," ESSEC Working Papers DR 08001, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    4. Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
    5. Batista, Catia & Potin, Jacques, 2006. "Stages of Diversification and Capital Accumulation in an Heckscher-Ohlin World, 1975-1995," ESSEC Working Papers DR 06008, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    6. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. Christophe Heintz & Jérémy Celse & Francesca Giardini & Sylvain Max, 2015. "Facing expectations: Those that we prefer to fulfil and those that we disregard," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(5), pages 442-455, September.
    2. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2011. "Banks' risk race: A signaling explanation," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 784-791, October.
    3. Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Lying about delegation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 29-40.
    4. Khalmetski, Kiryl & Rockenbach, Bettina & Werner, Peter, 2017. "Evasive lying in strategic communication," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 59-72.
    5. Tagat, Anirudh & Kapoor, Hansika, 2017. "The trust broker game: A three-player trust game with probabilistic returns and information asymmetry," Economics Discussion Papers 2017-33, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Experimental Economics; Financial Transactions; Investment Game; Objective Risk; Trust;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • G00 - Financial Economics - - General - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ebg:essewp:dr-10007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sophie Magnanou). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/essecfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.