The Reputational Consequences of Generalized Trust

Abstract

The present research examines the reputational consequences of generalized trust. High-trust individuals are seen as moral and sociable, but not necessarily competent. When controlling for other traits, there is a negative relationship between trust and perceived competence (Studies 1 and 2). Compared with optimism, generalized trust has stronger effects on morality and sociability (Study 2). Furthermore, people judge those who do not discriminate between trustworthy and untrustworthy groups (unconditional trustors) more negatively than those who only trust groups that are, in fact, trustworthy (conditional trustors). Unconditional trust and unconditional distrust are both viewed negatively (Study 3), even after controlling for attitudinal similarity (Study 4). Critically, both generalized trust and discriminant ability (i.e., conditional trust) have independent reputational benefits (Study 5). These studies suggest that generalized trust plays an important role in how we perceive and judge others.

Examining the trade‐off between confidence and optimism in future forecasts

“…In both Experiments 1 and 3, judges considered more (vs. less) optimistic forecasters warmer, even when they were less confident. These results are in line with previous work documenting the positive effect of dispositional optimism on inferences of warmth (e.g., Evans & van de Calseyde, ). Optimism may be related to the perception of warmth for multiple reasons: Optimists may be seen as having a strong desire to avoid hurting other people's feelings, which represents a central aspect of interpersonal warmth.…”

“…In the area of future business forecasts, valence might affect perceptions of warmth and morality. A generally optimistic worldview and smiling behavior are associated with perceptions of warmth and morality (Evans & van de Calseyde, 2017;Vollmann, Renner, & Weber, 2007;Wang, Mao, Li, & Liu, 2017). Thus, optimistic forecasters may be seen as more friendly, likeable, and well-intentioned.…”

Who can be fooled? Modeling facial impressions of gullibility

“…Moreover, the gullible face was also seen as more trustworthy and less dominant than the anti-gullible face. These findings are in line with the notion that gullible people are seen as well-intentioned and harmless individuals (Evans & van de Calseyde, 2018).…”

“…Second, we examine relationships between gullibility impressions and impressions of trustworthiness and dominance. Prior work suggests that gullible people are seen as wellintentioned and approachable, but also as relatively incompetent (Evans & van de Calseyde, 2018). This view predicts that that gullible-looking people should score high on perceived trustworthiness (a proxy for an individual's perceived intentions), but low on perceived dominance (a proxy for an individual's ability to implement their intentions; Todorov, Said, Engell, & Oosterhof, 2008).…”

Expressions of doubt and trust in online user reviews

“…Nevertheless, we believe that usefulness ratings that we focus on in the present analyses can be considered a legitimate proxy of perceived trustworthiness of reviews. In terms of personperception, useful may be best described as related to competence (Hartley et al, 2016;Landy, Piazza, & Goodwin, 2016), which represents a component of perceived trustworthiness in models of trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) and shows positive empirical associations with perceptions of person trustworthiness (Evans & van de Calseyde, 2017;Landy et al, 2016). In addition, existing investigations of online product reviews showed that the associations between readers' perceptions of usefulness and trustworthiness are similar in strength to the associations that are typically found among different indicators of the same latent construct, e.g., r = .64 in Wu and Lin (2017).…”