Investigating the formation and consolidation of incidentally learned trust.

Strachan, James; Guttesen, Anna á Váli; Smith, Anika; Gaskell, M. Gareth; Tipper, Steven P.; Cairney, Scott A.

doi:10.1037/xlm0000752

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, while emotion seems to modulate trust learning, and to influence trust judgments (Oosterhof and Todorov, 2008), its direct effect on gaze-cueing is unclear (Dalmaso et al, 2020). On the other hand, the trust learning effect has been replicated under a variety of conditions (Strachan et al, 2016(Strachan et al, , 2020. Notably, across studies trust learning was more consistently observed in the form of decreased trust for invalidcueing faces than as increased trust for valid cues , suggesting greater monitoring of deceptive characters over the cooperative ones.…”

Section: Gaze-cueing Effects On Trustworthiness Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effect of Trust on Gaze-Mediated Attentional Orienting

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last two decades have witnessed growing interest in the study of social cognition and its multiple facets, including trust. Interpersonal trust is generally understood as the belief that others are not likely to harm you. When meeting strangers, judgments of trustworthiness are mostly based on fast evaluation of facial appearance, unless information about past behavior is available. In the past decade, studies have tried to understand the complex relationship between trust and gaze-cueing of attention (GCA) (i.e., attentional orienting following another person’s gaze). This review will focus on the studies that used a gaze-cueing paradigm to explore this relationship. While the predictivity of the gaze-cue seems to consistently influence trustworthiness judgments, the impact of trust on gaze-cueing is less clear. Four studies found enhanced gaze-cueing effects with trustworthy faces; one found stronger effects of gaze-cueing with faces associated with undesirable behavior, but only when the observer’s personal evaluations were taken into account. Four studies did not observe an effect of trust on gaze-cueing. Overall, studies have highlighted the complexity of this relationship, suggesting that multiple factors (including age, gender, the characteristics of the observer, and whether or not a threat is perceived) are likely to intervene in the interplay between trust and gaze-triggered attentional orienting. After discussing results in the context of existing theories of gaze-cueing and trust, we conclude that further investigation is needed to better understand this relationship and the contribution of social factors to attentional shifts guided by gaze.

show abstract

Section: Gaze-cueing Effects On Trustworthiness Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Effect of Trust on Gaze-Mediated Attentional Orienting

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While this is a possible factor contributing to our results, there are reasons to believe that rapid decay of incidental impressions from subtle cues is not the primary driver. First, recent studies (Strachan et al, 2020; have examined the durability of incidental impressions formed during a gazecueing task, and found that the effects were relatively robust to interference and survived for up to a week, though the strength of the effect does fade somewhat over time. Second, the time-frame of our entire study, including both initial and changed behaviour, is similar to the time-frame of previous studies that have used gaze-cues to drive impression formation, albeit without a change in behaviour.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For Experiments 4 and 5, the timeframe between testing sessions is worth consideration, because a recent paper demonstrated that the effects of trust learning can persist for longer than one might expect; up to a week (Strachan et al, 2020). In their study, Strachan and colleagues (2020) asked participants to rate how trustworthy wholly valid and invalid faces were on four occasions; before a gaze-cueing task, immediately afterwards, after 90 minutes and after a one-week interval.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental impressions formed from visual social cues; updating and group context

Newey¹,

Koldewyn²,

Ramsey³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of subtle social cues, including gaze behaviour, are used to form impressions of others. For example, if another’s eye-gaze reliably helps or hinders us while we complete a task, we incidentally form a positive or negative impression about them. In real life, people are rarely so consistent in their behaviour, and they are often encountered in dynamic group contexts. To date, however, it is not yet known how incidental impressions are affected by either changes in target individual’s behaviour over time group, or by the group’s behaviour. To better understand how impressions are formed when subtle social behaviours change valence over time, we manipulated helping behaviour both at the level of the individual (Experiments 1-3) and the wider group (Experiments 4 & 5). Contrary to the idea that first impressions are hard to change, we found no evidence that impressions were driven by initial behaviour (primacy effects). Rather, people tended to form impressions based on the most recent behaviour, with some influence from the overall, average behaviour. In addition, we found that individuals’ behaviours appear to be viewed more or less favourably, depending on the behaviour of the wider group. Overall, we demonstrate that impression formation based on subtle social cues is not dominated by a single process, but instead reflects a complex product of cognitive mechanisms that integrate average valence over time, the direction of behaviour changes, the recency of observed behaviour, and the group context in which the behaviour is observed.

show abstract

“…The MATG, first published by Collins 1 in his master’s thesis, is a game of strategic interaction combining features of two commonly used games, the multi-arm bandit game ( Robbins, 1952 ) and the trust game ( Berg et al, 1995 ). The trust game was first used by Berg et al (1995) to examine behavior in one-shot interactions and later used by other researchers to study behavior in repeated interactions ( Dubois et al, 2012 ), group interactions ( Ignat et al, 2019 – control condition), and over various periods of time ( Strachan et al, 2020 ). The multi-arm bandit game ( Robbins, 1952 ) has been used in various psychological studies to explore exploration-exploitation behavior in both animals and humans (e.g., Cohen et al, 2007 ).…”

Section: Empirical Study Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust Miscalibration Is Sometimes Necessary: An Empirical Study and a Computational Model

Collins

Juvina

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on trust seems to have reached a consensus that appropriately calibrated trust in humans or machines is highly desirable; miscalibrated (i.e., over- or under-) trust has been thought to only have negative consequences (i.e., over-reliance or under-utilization). While not invalidating the general idea of trust calibration, a published computational cognitive model of trust in strategic interaction predicts that some local and temporary violations of the trust calibration principle are critical for sustained success in strategic situations characterized by interdependence and uncertainty (e.g., trust game, prisoner’s dilemma, and Hawk-dove). This paper presents empirical and computational modeling work aimed at testing the predictions of under- and over-trust in an extension of the trust game, the multi-arm trust game, that captures some important characteristics of real-world interpersonal and human-machine interactions, such as the ability to choose when and with whom to interact among multiple agents. As predicted by our previous model, we found that, under conditions of increased trust necessity, participants actively reconstructed their trust-investment portfolios by discounting their trust in their previously trusted counterparts and attempting to develop trust with the counterparts that they previously distrusted. We argue that studying these exceptions of the principle of trust calibration might be critical for understanding long-term trust calibration in dynamic environments.

show abstract

Investigating the formation and consolidation of incidentally learned trust.

Cited by 17 publications

References 58 publications

The Effect of Trust on Gaze-Mediated Attentional Orienting

The Effect of Trust on Gaze-Mediated Attentional Orienting

Incidental impressions formed from visual social cues; updating and group context

Trust Miscalibration Is Sometimes Necessary: An Empirical Study and a Computational Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About