Trust, Reciprocity and Religion in a University Setting: An Experimental Approach

Abstract

A distinctive feature of economics that sets it apart from other fields in social sciences is that we base it on the belief that it can explain most behavioural actions by assuming that all consumers are rational and have well-defined preferences. If a decision is difficult to 'rationalise,' it is considered as an anomaly. By using various games such as “ultimatum” games and “public goods” games, the paper experimentally tries to observe the effects of bias and discrimination on the economic decisions of individuals with opponents of distinct ethnic and gender affiliation and uses the "dictator game," to detect a systematic mistrust toward players of different religious origins. By this we tried to identify whether strategies differed based on religious affiliations and gender identities. While standard economic theory claims that individuals are rational actors and will always act out of self-interest, games played with our respondents showed exciting results.