To trust or not to trust: social decision‐making in post‐institutionalized, internationally adopted youth

Abstract

Chronic parental maltreatment has been associated with lower levels of interpersonal trust, and depriving environments have been shown to predict shortsighted, risk-averse decision-making. The present study examined whether a circumscribed period of adverse care occurring only early in life was associated with biases in trust behavior. Fifty-three post-institutionalized (PI) youth, adopted internationally on average by one year of age, and 33 never-institutionalized, non-adopted youth (M age = 12.9 years) played a trust game. Participants decided whether or not to share coins with a different anonymous peer in each trial with the potential to receive a larger number of coins in return. Trials were presented in blocks that varied in the degree to which the peers behaved in a trustworthy (reciprocal) or untrustworthy (non-reciprocal) manner. A comparison condition consisted of a computerized lottery with the same choices and probabilistic risk as the peer trials. Non-adopted comparison youth showed a tendency to share more with peers than to invest in the lottery and tended to maintain their level of sharing across trials despite experiencing trials in which peers failed to reciprocate. In contrast, PI children, particularly those who were adopted over a year of age, shared less with peers than they invested in the lottery and quickly adapted their sharing behavior to peers' responses. These results suggest that PI youth were more mistrusting, more sensitive to both defection and reciprocation, and potentially more accurate in their trusting decisions than comparison youth. Results support the presence of a sensitive period for the development of trust in others, whereby conditions early in life may set long-term biases in decision-making.

Getting less than their fair share: Maltreated youth are hyper‐cooperative yet vulnerable to exploitation in a public goods game

“…Besides this, it is also intriguing that our results markedly contrast with Pitula et al. 's () findings in postinstitutionalized adoptees who showed lower rates and maintenance of sharing with peers in a trust game. One possibility is that institutionalization engenders a distinct form of social deficit, for example, involving diminished levels of reciprocity (Zeanah & Gleason, ) as compared to maltreatment by caregivers encountered in the community.…”

“…Subsequently, these resources are augmented by a given factor and finally the trustee must decide how many resources to return to the trustor (Alarcón & Forbes, ) . Most importantly for the present purposes, a recent study using multiple trials of a single‐shot trust game found that postinstitutionalized, adopted youth displayed lower rates and maintained less sharing behavior after they interacted with nonreciprocating peers, compared to never‐institutionalized, nonadopted controls (Pitula, Wenner, Gunnar, & Thomas, ). However, despite Pitula et al.…”

“…However, despite Pitula et al. 's () intriguing results, it remains unclear whether their findings are generalizable to other more common forms of maltreatment or other types of social situations. Thus, institutionalization and/ or adoption may engender a distinct pattern of social behavior (e.g., involving limited social reciprocity) that is not typically linked with maltreatment without placement in foster care or adoption (see Zeanah & Gleason, ).…”

Peer Problems Among Postinstitutionalized, Internationally Adopted Children: Relations to Hypocortisolism, Parenting Quality, and ADHD Symptoms

“…These types of disinhibited peer behaviors are known to be aversive to peers and are likely to result in victimization and rejection (Hanish et al., ). In addition to ADHD, problems with peers may also arise via deficits in social awareness/cognition, prosocial behavior, and propensity to trust, which have been shown to increase with longer durations of institutional care in previous research (Pitula, Wenner, Gunnar, & Thomas, ; Wismer Fries & Pollak, ).…”

Attachment Overcomes Trauma: The Theoretical Context of Lion

“…He is extremely fortunate in being adopted from his Calcutta orphanage family, which illustrates the impact of chance on life outcomes. But because Saroo had already formed secure attachments as a young boy, he was able to form secure attachments with his adoptive parents as well (Ammaniti, van Ijzendoorn, Speranza, & Tambelli, ; Pitula, Wenner, Gunnar, & Thomas, ). His previous secure attachment to his biological family was another one of his resilience and protective factors that allowed him to adjust well to life in Tasmania, which is not common among most adopted children or youth (Smyke & Potter, ).…”