Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief

Chang, Luke J.; Doll, Bradley B.; Wout-Frank, Mascha van ’t; Frank, Michael J.; Sanfey, Alan G.

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.03.001

Cited by 259 publications

(295 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

265

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…17 We suspect that in a non-social context, the individuals who decide to keep their endowment rather than gamble it will not feel the same "guilty contentment" that non-trusting investors report, likewise the gambler who incurs a loss on a wager will not experience the "angry pride" otherwise felt by the investor who invested much of their endowment only to have their trust broken with a small return. Future research could adapt emotion measures like ours to social vs non-social treatment designs similar to those used by Houser, Schunk, & Winter (2010) or Chang et al (2010) to evaluate whether conflicted emotions are equally triggered in non-social situations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 The calibration of one's behavior regulating programs will be determined by moods, emotional capital (consequent on past goal accomplishments or forgone achievements), present demands, available outcomes, and belief-dependent emotions based on expectations about a partner (e.g. see Chang et al, 2010Chang et al, , 2011. So, while we expect the output of these programs to show individual differences in degree (i.e., variance in relative strengths of regulatory programs or emotions), we do not expect them to show differences in kind (i.e., direction or dynamics of recalibrational effects) if they exist as reliably developing species-typical adaptations.…”

Section: The Adaptive Dilemma Modeled By the Trust Gamementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflicted emotions following trust-based interaction

Schniter

Sheremeta

Shields

2015

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:We observed reports of conflicted (concurrent positive and negative) emotions activated after interactions in the Trust game. Our analyses reveal that activation of 20 emotional states following trust-based interaction is better explained by predictions derived from a multidimensional Recalibrational perspective than by predictions derived from two-dimensional Valence and Arousal perspectives. The Recalibrational perspective proposes that emotions are activated according to their functional features -for example, emotions help people achieve short or long-sighted goals by up or down-regulating behavioral propensities, whereas Valence and Arousal perspectives consider simpler hedonic dimensions lacking functional specificity. The Recalibrational perspective is also distinguished from the Valence and Arousal perspectives in that it predicts the possibility of conflicted emotions. We discuss the theoretical implications of having conflicted goals and the economic implications of having conflicted emotions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Adaptive Dilemma Modeled By the Trust Gamementioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicted emotions following trust-based interaction

Schniter

Sheremeta

Shields

2015

Journal of Economic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, trust is a unidirectional construct, which means that it goes from a given trustor to a given trustee [18] (because this paper focuses on enforcement strategies, we only examine the regulator's trust towards the agent, and ignore the agent's trust towards the regulator). Second, trust can emerge as the relationship develops, which means that trust can be built, maintained, and dissolved [5,[19][20][21]. Third, trust involves risk as it makes the trustor vulnerable to opportunistic behavior.…”

Section: Trust-based Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Only the Carrot, Not the Stick: Incorporating Trust into the Enforcement of Regulation

Mendoza,

Wielhouwer

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New enforcement strategies allow agents to gain the regulator's trust and consequently face a lower audit probability. Prior research suggests that, in order to prevent lower compliance, a reduction in the audit probability (the "carrot") must be compensated with the introduction of a higher penalty for non-compliance (the "stick"). However, such carrot-and-stick strategies reflect neither the concept of trust nor the strategies observed in practice. In response to this, we define trust-based regulation as a strategy that incorporates rules that allow trust to develop, and using a generic (non-cooperative) game of tax compliance, we examine whether trust-based regulation is feasible (i.e., whether, in equilibrium, a reduction in the audit probability, without ever increasing the penalty for non-compliance, does not lead to reduced compliance). The model shows that trust-based regulation is feasible when the agent sufficiently values the future. In line with the concept of trust, this strategy is feasible when the regulator is uncertain about the agent's intentions. Moreover, the model shows that (i) introducing higher penalties makes trust-based regulation less feasible, and (ii) combining trust and forgiveness can lead to a lower audit probability for both trusted and distrusted agents. Policy recommendations often point toward increasing deterrence. This model shows that the opposite can be optimal.

show abstract

“…The 24 trials of the trust game were intermixed with an additional six trials of slot-machine gambles (10,39,40). When gambling on the slot machine, participants were offered two choices: they could either gamble with a pool of $8 or they could keep $8.…”

Section: Or No (2) Please Wait a Few Moments For Us To Synchronize Ymentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of relationship experience on trust recovery following a breach

Schilke

Reimann

Cook

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A violation of trust can have quite different consequences, depending on the nature of the relationship in which the trust breach occurs. In this article, we identify a key relationship characteristic that affects trust recovery: the extent of relationship experience before the trust breach. Across two experiments, this investigation establishes the behavioral effect that greater relationship experience before a trust breach fosters trust recovery. A neuroimaging experiment provides initial evidence that this behavioral effect is possible because of differential activation of two brain systems: while decision making after early trust breaches engages structures of a controlled social cognition system (C-system), specifically the anterior cingulate cortex and lateral frontal cortex, decision making after later trust breaches engages structures of an automatic social cognition system (X-system), specifically the lateral temporal cortex. The present findings make contributions to both social psychological theory and the neurophysiology of trust.T rust is known to facilitate collective undertakings across a variety of contexts (1-3). Unfortunately, few social relationships endure without a violation of trust (i.e., trust breach), and once broken, trust is notoriously hard to reestablish (4-6). This article aims to improve our understanding of the process of trust recovery after a trust breach (7,8). Specifically, we address the question of why certain kinds of relationships recover better from a trust breach than others and focus on the role of prior relationship experience, one of the most basic and fundamental characteristics of social relationships (9). We propose that greater relationship experience before a trust breach facilitates trust recovery. In other words, the longer the relationship history before a trust breach, the more likely is recovery from such a breach. However, if the trust breach occurs in an earlier stage when trust is still partial, tentative, and fragile, we expect trust to be particularly susceptible to enduring damage by a trust breach, suggesting a weaker recovery of trust.Beyond identifying a direct relationship between prebreach experience and postbreach trust levels, we analyze key mechanisms underlying this relationship. We propose that if little relationship experience exists and a trust breach occurs, an individual engages in more conscious learning, complex planning, and increased problem solving with respect to the social relationship. Prior research implies that such cognitive processes may be key to trust recovery after early trust breaches, but this research has not yet provided actual empirical support (7). Furthermore, as relationships mature, they become increasingly habitualized and "taken for granted," fostering reconciliation after a trust breach. This notion is supported by prior literature, which implies that over time trustors tend to develop mental models of their counterpart that provide a basis for habitualized decision making (10) and make a negative deviation (suc...

show abstract

Seeing is believing: Trustworthiness as a dynamic belief

Cited by 259 publications

References 49 publications

Conflicted emotions following trust-based interaction

Conflicted emotions following trust-based interaction

Only the Carrot, Not the Stick: Incorporating Trust into the Enforcement of Regulation

Effect of relationship experience on trust recovery following a breach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About