Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trust towards migrants

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a standard trust game, we elicit trust and reciprocity measures in a representative sample of adult players in Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay, a country that received a sizeable influx of Venezuelan and Cuban migrants, has lower internal disparities than other Latin American countries and exhibits relatively better levels of tolerance towards migrants. We find no statistically significant differences in trust levels of Uruguayans towards countrymen versus migrants and mixed results regarding reciprocity, with migrants exhibiting a flatter response to trust than their local counterparts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

This study was pre-registered in the AEA RCT Registry (AEARCTR-0005193). The experimental data, replication package and the paper appendix with the full set of instructions for the experimental sessions, posters and booklets can be downloaded from https://osf.io/f2am4/.

Notes

  1. One of the most influential weekly newspapers (Búsqueda) cited Tanja Pacífico, (in charge of the Uruguayan office of the International Organization for Migration, OIM) saying “We are noticing expressions of discrimination, racism and xenophobia that were not seen before”. The OIM twitted on August 14 of 2020: “We believe that the Uruguayan is generally inclusive but #xenophobia is a component that is still present in our society”.

    https://www.busqueda.com.uy/Secciones/Las-Naciones-Unidas-afirma-que-el-Covid-19-genero-expresiones-de-racismo-y-xenofobia-que-antes-no-se-veian-en-Uruguay-uc1106

    https://twitter.com/oimuruguay/status/1294376944256024578.

  2. See Johnson and Mislin (2011) for a meta-analysis of the trust game and a discussion of variations in its implementation and Alós-Ferrer and Farolfi (2019) for a discussion of its limitations and alternative paradigms to measure trust (survey based and through neurochemical manipulations and neuroimaging).

  3. See Appendix B for the full set of instructions translated to English from the original Spanish version and for the original booklets.

  4. The strategy method followed here asks player 2 for the full strategy of behavior instead of responding to the actual offer of player 1. The benefit of this procedure is that it provides much more information. On the other hand, some people may find it more difficult to think in these terms (Güth, Tietz and Muller, 2001). Brandts and Charness (2011) and Johnson and Mislin (2011) in their literature surveys report no differences in results due to the strategy method.

  5. Translated from Spanish.

  6. Also used in Barrios and Gandelman (2015).

  7. These 10 participants were matched with two different trustees per round and thus played a total of 8 rounds of the trust game; as far as their matched counterparts are concerned, these interactions were no different than the rest. Excluding these participants does not significantly affect the main results; we include these regressions in the appendix.

  8. Figure 3 in Appendix A presents additional stable statistics by round.

  9. All p-values are from two-tailed t-tests clustered at the subject level.

  10. Using nonparametric techniques, we also reject differences in trust towards Uruguayans and Migrants. We implement the Kolmogorov–Smirnov equality of distributions test (p = 0.99) and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p = 0.67).

  11. Comparable results hold for ordered dependent models; we present OLS since their coefficients give a direct interpretation. Also, equivalent results are found in round-by-round estimations.

  12. Other combinations of control variables do not affect the main results of the paper. For instance, this includes cross-controls to reflect in group-out group effects by education level and neighborhood of residence.

  13. All tests are two-tailed t-tests clustered at the subject level.

References

  • Achard, P., Albrecht, S., Ghidoni, R., Cettolin, E., & Suetens, S. (2022). The effect of exposure to ethnic minorities on ethnic preferences. CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP17294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2010). Identity Economics. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aksoy, B., Harwell, H., Kovaliukaite, A., & Eckel, C. (2018). Measuring trust: A reinvestigation. Southern Economic Journal, 84(4), 992–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, S., & Smerdon, D. (2022). The social capital effects of refugee resettlement on host communities. Economic Record, 98(320), 80–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alós-Ferrer, C. and F. Farolfi. 2019. “Trust Games and Beyond”, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13

  • Andersson, O., & Wengström, E. (2012). Credible communication and cooperation: Experimental evidence from multi-stage games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 207–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to garp: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., & Rao, J. M. (2011). The power of asking: How communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arocena, F. (2009). La contribución de los Inmigrantes en Uruguay. International Journal on Collective Identity Research, 2, 1–42.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios, J. J., & Gandelman, N. (2015). Religious participation, trust and reciprocity: Evidence from six latin American cities. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 15(1), 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2011). Identity, morals, and taboos: beliefs as assets. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 805–855.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Ner, A., Putterman, L., & Ren, T. (2011). Lavish returns on cheap talk: Two-way communication in trust games. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). Erc: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert, J., & Dhaene, G. (2004). Inter-ethnic trust and reciprocity: Results of an experiment with small businessmen. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 869–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracht, J., & Feltovich, N. (2009). Whatever you say, your reputation precedes you: Observation and cheap talk in the trust game. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9–10), 1036–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, L., Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Zhang, M. (2015). Cultural integration: Experimental evidence of convergence in immigrants’ preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 111, 38–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cárdenas, J. C., Chong, A., & Ñopo, H. (2009). To what extent do latin Americans trust, reciprocate, and cooperate? Evidence from experiments in six Latin American countries. Economía, 9(2), 45–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cettolin, E., & Suetens, S. (2018). Return on trust is lower for immigrants. Economic Journal, 129(621), 1992–2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74, 1579–1601.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group identity and social preferences. American Economic Review, 99(1), 431–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. C., & Orman, W. H. (2015). Trust and trustworthiness of immigrants and native-born Americans. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 57, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P., Schaefferm, M., & Sønderskov, K. (2020). Ethnic diversity and social trust: A narrative and meta-analytical review. Annual Review of Political Science, 23, 441–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinesen, P., & Sønderskov, K. (2015). Ethnic diversity and social trust: The role of exposure in the micro-context. American Sociological Review, 80(3), 550–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Bialy, N., E. Fraile Aranda, A. Nicklisch, L. Saleh, & S. Voigt, (2021). “No Man is an Island-Trust, Trustworthiness, and Social Capital among Syrian Refugees in Germany.” ILE Working Paper Series. (No. 45).

  • Falk, A., & Zehnder, C. (2013). A city-wide experiment on trust discrimination. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fershtman, C., & Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society: An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 351–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finseraas, H., & Kotsadam, A. (2017). Does personal contact with ethnic minorities affect anti-immigrant sentiments? Evidence from a field experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 56(3), 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fossatti Fernández, L. E., (2017). “Cocinando al migrante ideal – la construcción mediática de LA”. Jornadas de Investigación de la Facultad de Inforamción y Comunicación.

  • Garbarino, E., & Slonim, R. (2009). The robustness of trust and reciprocity across a heterogeneous US population. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69(3), 226–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gereke, J., Schaub, M., & Baldassarri, D. (2018). Ethnic diversity, poverty and social trust in Germany: evidence from a behavioral measure of trust. PLoS ONE, 13(7), e0199834.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., et al. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., Tietz, R., & Müller, W. (2001). The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 161–169.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesler, C., & Bloemraad, I. (2010). Does immigration Erode social capital? The conditional effects of immigration-generated diversity on trust, membership, and participation across 19 countries, 1981–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 43(2), 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koukoumelis, A., Levati, M. V., & Weisser, J. (2012). Leading by words: A voluntary contribution experiment with one-way communication. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(2), 379–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Pérez, R. (2012). The power of words: A model of honesty and fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 642–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, A., M. Koolhaas., (2008). “Migración Internacional: Los Hogares de los Emigrantes.” In: C. Varela, coordinator. Demografía de una Sociedad en Transición: La Población Uruguaya a Inicios del Siglo XXI. Montevideo, Uruguay: Trilce.

  • Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does diversity Erode trust? Neighborhood diversity, interpersonal trust and the mediating effect of social interactions. Political Studies, 56(1), 57–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Akker, M., van Assen, M., van Vugt, M., & Wicherts, J. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, 102329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Linden, M., Hooghe, M., De Vroome, T., & Van Laar, C. (2017). Extending trust to immigrants: generalized trust, cross-group friendship and anti-immigrant sentiments in 21 European societies. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0177369.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zultan, R. I. (2012). Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 425–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Martín Glass, Sofía Spektor, Eugenia Rodríguez and Daniela Veneziani for field coordination and Deborah Eilender, Francisca Ferrés, Avivit Gandelman, Marcel Kemper, Gabriel Lander, Agustina Lema, Martín Mautner, Daniel Misail, Lucía Pazos, Mario Rufo, Ezequiel Yudka for their help in the field implementation.

Funding

This study was undertaken as part of the project “Trust Measures and Interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean RG-K1198” of the Latin American and Caribbean Research Network of the Inter-American Development Bank whose financial support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad ORT Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay

    Néstor Gandelman

  2. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

    Diego Lamé

Authors
  1. Néstor Gandelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diego Lamé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Lamé.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest or competing interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A

Appendix A

See Fig.

Fig 3
figure 3

Boxplot of % Endowment Sent by Round. Reported statistics correspond to the minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum

Full size image

3 and Tables

Table 6 Average trust and reciprocity by demographic characteristics of player making the decision
Full size table

6,

Table 7 Average trust and reciprocity by demographic characteristics of player’s partner
Full size table

7,

Table 8 Average trust excluding trustors who played twice
Full size table

8,

Table 9 Regression excluding trustors who played twice
Full size table

9,

Table 10 Communication excluding trustors who played twice
Full size table

10

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gandelman, N., Lamé, D. Trust towards migrants. Theory Decis 96, 311–331 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-023-09950-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-023-09950-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation