Judgment Accuracy of Other's Trustworthiness and General Trust: An Experimental Study

Kikuchi, Masako; Watanabe, Yoriko; Yamagishi, Toshio

doi:10.2130/jjesp.37.23

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is basically a replication of Kikuchi et al's (1997) experiment presented earlier. The major difference between this and the previous experiment by Kikuchi et al (1997) is the participants. While participants in the Kikuchi et al experiments consisted of strangers, participants in this experiment were acquaintances.…”

Section: Predicting Interaction In Partner's Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…that high trusters are more sensitive than low trusters to trustworthiness-related information, a question still remains: Does that heightened sensitivity among high trusters lead them to more accurate judgments in detecting untrustworthy people? An experiment by Kikuchi, Watanabe & Yamagishi (1997) was designed to provide an answer to this question. Participants in this experiment participated in a 30-minute discussion in six-person groups on garbage collection issues.…”

Section: Predicting Interaction In Partner's Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence

Yamagishi

Kikuchi

Kosugi

1999

Asian J of Social Psycho

Self Cite

208

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments conducted in Japan by Yamagishi and his associates are presented, all consistently showing that high trusters (as measured with a general trust scale) are more sensitive than low trusters to information potentially revealing lack of trustworthiness in others and judge other people's choice in a one‐shot prisoner's dilemma more accurately. Based on these findings, a new theoretical twist is introduced to the “emancipation theory of trust” originally proposed by Yamagishi & Yamagishi (1994), that emphasizes the relation‐expansion role of trust in addition to the traditionally noticed relation‐fortification role of trust. When opportunity cost for staying in a commitment relation is generally high, it is more advantageous not to stay in secure and stable commitment relations but to explore opportunities that lie outside, and yet such social exploration involves the risk of being exploited by untrustworthy people. It is thus a more gainful strategy to invest “cognitive resources” in the nurturing of “social intelligence” needed to detect signals of untrustworthiness. General trust may be conceived as a by‐product of the development of such social intelligence. Those who have invested in the development of social intelligence can afford to maintain a high level of general trust, whereas those who have not are encouraged to assume that “everyone is a thief” and to refrain from pursuing potentially lucrative but risky outside opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Predicting Interaction In Partner's Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Predicting Interaction In Partner's Trustworthinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence

Yamagishi

Kikuchi

Kosugi

1999

Asian J of Social Psycho

Self Cite

208

181

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frank, Gilovich, and Regan (1993) found that allowing subjects to have a face-to-face discussion enabled them to predict who would play cooperatively at a rate significantly better than chance. Kikuchi, Watanabe, and Yamagishi (1996) found that those who were rated as having a high degree of trust were able to predict others' behavior more accurately than those with low levels of trust. If some conditional cooperators are also willing punishers, communication provides an opportunity for verbal sanctions and other overt signs of disapproval.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%