Effects of Financial Incentives on the Breakdown of Mutual Trust
Abstract
Disagreements between psychologists and economists about the need for and size of financial incentives continue to be hotly discussed. We examine the effects of financial incentives in a class of interactive decision-making situations, called centipede games, in which mutual trust is essential for cooperation. Invoking backward induction, the Nash equilibrium solution for these games is counterintuitive. Our previous research showed that when the number of players in the centipede game is increased from two to three, the game is iterated in time, the players are rematched, and the stakes are unusually high, behavior approaches equilibrium play. Results from the present study show that reducing the size of the stakes elicits dramatically different patterns of behavior. We argue that when mutual trust is involved, the magnitude of financial incentives can induce a considerable difference.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People tend to be more selfish when the stakes of the game increase.
“Further, several studies have found that people tend to be more selfish when the stakes of the game increase”
From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Parco, Rapoport and Stein [2002]
Cites
Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All*
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000) · Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355300554917 · Cited by 2,175 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16822 · Cited by 540 · see citing works
- Authors
- Parco, J. E., Rapoport, A., & Stein, W. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parco, James E.
- ORCID
- Rapoport, Amnon
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-05
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 292-297
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2097617721
- Cited by
- 74
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 8.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Game Theory and Applications
- Keywords
- financial incentives, mutual trust, centipede game, cooperation, backward induction, Nash equilibrium, stakes, incentive magnitude, interactive decision making, repeated games
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Decision Making, Games, Experimental, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Probability, Reimbursement, Incentive
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review