Trust and Reciprocity: The Differing Norms of Individuals and Group Representatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents evidence that trust and reciprocity behavior and perceptions is sensitive to whether people are making decisions solely on their own behalf or when they are given the responsibility to act on behalf of their groups. Employing the widely-used experimental framework of the trust game (Berg et al., 1995) with salient monetary payoffs, I examine and contrast the level of trust and reciprocity exhibited by individuals in inter-individual interactions with those exhibited by the same individual when he/she is responsible for a group decision. The results suggest that people trust less and reciprocate less when responsible for a group or organizational decision. I also explore perceptions about trust and reciprocity behavior of one's own and that of others in the study and find that there are disconnections between perspectives of parties involved about the interaction and the actual observed behavior. The evidence reported here, consistent with the idea that people are poor at making hypothetical predictions, highlights the disconnections between behavioral forecasts and behavior. Lastly, this paper also makes an important advance in our understanding of the norm of reciprocity. Theoretical and practical implications are offered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".