Social distance in a virtual world experiment

Games and Economic Behavior

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 400-426

  Fiedler, Marina ^a   Haruvy, Ernan ^b   Li, Sherry Xin ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Cheap talk; Communication; Experiments; Partner selection; Social distance; Trust; Virtual worlds

Indexed keywords

EID: 79956347524     PISSN: 08998256     EISSN: 10902473     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2010.09.004     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Akerlof G. Social distance and social decisions. Econometrica 1997, 65:1005-1028.
2. Bainbridge W. The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science 2007, 317:472-476.
3. Becker G. The Economics of Discrimination 1957, The University of Chicago Press.
4. Berg J., Dickhaut J., McCabe K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10:122-142.
5. Bloomfield, R., 2007. Worlds for study: invitation virtual worlds for studying real-world business (and law, and politics, and sociology, and ...). Working paper.
6. Bochet O., Page T., Putterman L. Communication and punishment in voluntary contribution experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 60:11-26.
7. Bolter J. Virtual reality and the redefinition of self. Communication and Cyberspace. Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment 1996, 105-119. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.
8. Bolton G., Ockenfels A. ERC - A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90:166-193.
9. Brosig J., Ockenfels A., Joachim W. The effect of communication media on cooperation. Ger. Econ. Rev. 2003, 4:217-241.
10. Buchan N., Johnson E., Croson R. Let's get personal: an international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 60:373-398.
11. Castronova, E., 2001. Virtual worlds: a first-hand account of market and society on the cyberian frontier. Indiana University Bloomington, Working paper.
12. Chakravarti, S., Haruvy, E., 2003. Other-regarding preferences in indirect trust games. University of Texas at Dallas, Working paper.
13. Charness G., Haruvy E., Sonsino D. Social distance and reciprocity: an internet experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2007, 63:88-103.
14. Charness G., Gneezy U. What's in a name? Reducing the social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008, 68:29-35.
15. Charness G., Rabin M. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econ. 2002, 117:817-869.
16. Chen Y., Li S. Group identity and social preferences. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99:431-457.
17. Colquitt J., Scott B., LePine J. Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psych. 2007, 92:909-927.
18. Cox J., Deck C. On the nature of reciprocal motives. Econ. Inquiry 2005, 43:623-635.
19. Croson R., Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 2004, 47:1-27.
20. Dana J., Cain D., Dawes R. What you don't know won't hurt me: costly (but quiet) exit in a dictator game. Organ. Behav. Human Dec. Process. 2006, 100:193-201.
21. Das T., Teng B. Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1998, 23:491-512.
22. Duffy J., Feltovich N. Do actions speak louder than words? Observation vs. cheap talk as coordination devices. Games Econ. Behav. 2002, 39:1-27.
23. Dufwenberg M., Muren A. Generosity, anonymity, gender. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 61:42-49.
24. Eckel, C., Wilson, R., 2000. Whom to trust? Choice of partner in a trust game. Rice University, Working paper.
25. Eckel, C., Wilson, R., 2002. Conditional trust: sex, race and facial expressions in a trust game. Rice University, Working paper.
26. Fan Y. Questioning guanxi: definition and classification and implications. Int. Bus. Rev. 2002, 11:543-561.
27. Fehr Ernst, Schmidt K. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econ. 1999, 114:817-868.
28. Fershtman C., Gneezy U. Discrimination in a segmented society: an experimental approach. Quart. J. Econ. 2001, 116:351-377.
29. Frank R., Thomas G., Regan D. The evolution of one-shot cooperation. Ethology Sociobiol. 1993, 14:247-256.
30. Frey B., Bohnet I. Identification in democratic society. J. Socio-Econ. 1997, 26:25-39.
31. Frohlich N., Oppenheimer J. Some consequences of email vs. face-to-face communication in experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1998, 35:389-403.
32. Guth W., Van Damme E. Information, strategic behavior, and fairness in Ultimatum bargaining: an experimental study. J. Math. Psych. 1998, 42:227-247.
33. Ivanova-Stenzel R., Salmon T. Bidder preferences among auction institutions. Econ. Inquiry 2004, 42:223-236.
34. Jarvenpaa S., Leidner D. Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Org. Sci. 1999, 10:791-815.
35. Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S., Kollock, P., 2000. The effect of communication modality on cooperation in online environments. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 470-477.
36. Kahn A., Nelson R., Gaeddert W. Sex of subject and sex composition of the group as determinants of reward allocations. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 1980, 38:737-750.
37. Khatri N., Tsang E. Antecedents and consequences of cronyism in organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43:289-303.
38. Khatri N., Tsang E., Begley T. Cronyism: a cross-cultural analysis. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2006, 37:61-75.
39. McLarney C., Rhyno S. Beyond agency theory: International joint ventures as reciprocating relationships. Research in International Business and International Relations, vol. 7 1998, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
40. Mulford M., Orbell J., Shatto C., Stockard J. Physical attractiveness and opportunity and success in everyday exchange. Amer. J. Econ. Sociology 1998, 103:1565-1592.
41. Nardi B., Whittaker S. The place of face-to-face communication in distributed work. Distributed Work: New Research on Working Across Distance Using Technology 2002, 83-110. MIT Press.
42. Nohria N., Eccles R. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action 1992, Harvard Business School Press.
43. O'Hara-Devereaux M., Johansen R. Globalwork: Bridging Distances, Culture and Time 1994, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
44. Orbell J., Van de Kragt A., Dawes R. Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. J. Personal. Social Psychol. 1988, 54:811-819.
45. Rao A., Schmidt S. A behavioral perspective on negotiating international alliance. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 1998, 29:665-694.
46. Saad G., Gill T. Sex differences in the Ultimatum game: an evolutionary psychology perspective. J. Bioecon. 2001, 3:171-193.
47. Saad G., Gill T. The effects of a recipient's gender in a modified dictator game. Appl. Econ. Letters 2001, 8:463-466.
48. Segal U., Sobel J. Tit for tat: foundations of preferences for reciprocity in strategic settings. J. Econ. Theory 2007, 127:197-216.
49. Sheeks M., Birchmeier Z. Shyness, sociability, and the use of computer-mediated communication in relationship development. Cyper Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10:64-70.
50. Sherwood A., Covin J. Knowledge acquisition in university - industry alliances: an empirical investigation from a learning theory perspective. J. Product Innovation Manage. 2008, 25:162-179.
51. Slonim, R., 2006. Gender selection discrimination: evidence from a trust game. Case Western Reserve University, Working paper.
52. Slonim, R., Garbarino, E., 2006. Increases in efficiency from partner selection: experimental evidence. Case Western Reserve University, Working paper.
53. Utz S. Der aufbau von interpersonalen beziehungen in MUDs. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung 2001, 32:145-160.
54. Wasserman S., Faust K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications 1994, Cambridge Univ. Press.
55. Weiss S. Analysis of complex negotiations in international business: the RBC perspective. Organ. Sci. 1993, 4:269-300.