To trust, or not to trust: Cognitive reflection in trust games

Corgnet, Brice; Espín, Antonio M.; Hérnan-Gonzalez, Roberto; Kujal, Praveen; Rassenti, Stephen

doi:10.1016/j.socec.2015.09.008

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because trust is cognitive (Corgnet et al . ), these determinants are important; they show that they are significant in every model even when more institutional variables are added. Attesting to the present study, a study by Foster (1965) also confirmed that the daily struggle and the feeling of insecurity within a society negatively affect trust.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Between inequality and sectarianism: who destroys generalised trust? The case of Lebanon

Alijla¹

2016

Int Social Sci J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2015, a new wave of protests erupted in Lebanon. These protests were the result of a lengthy period of political instability in the country. The informality of the sectarian political system in Lebanon has reached the point where the country has not had a president for more than two years. The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of institutional conditions on the level of generalised trust in a divided society. The paper conducts a statistical analysis of the Arab Barometer Survey data. The paper argues that institutions, as well as perceived living conditions – including inequality, the feeling of safety, and the sense of insecurity – in divided societies, are an important source of social (generalised) trust in the long run. The paper suggests that institutions can also easily destroy generalised trust in such societies if they are designed ineffectively and prove to be unfair and unequal. This paper concludes that equal and fair public institutions are crucial in maintaining a high level of generalised trust.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Individuals react based on their belief or knowledge of others. A member of one sect may have a personal reason to distrust an individual from another sect; this distrust is then reflected on all members of that sect (Corgnet et al 2014). Subsequently, others will react to his distrust with distrust.…”

Section: What Is Generalised Trust?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between inequality and sectarianism: who destroys generalised trust? The case of Lebanon

Alijla¹

2016

Int Social Sci J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They include the amount the trustor expects to receive in return, social preferences toward ingroups and out-groups, risk attitudes, and gender. We include the performance in the math quiz as a proxy for higher intellectual abilities, because previous studies have suggested that more intelligent people trust more (e.g., Corgnet et al, 2016). We add a dummy variable indicating that the trustor somewhat or strongly disagrees with the statement about the importance of math skills, as it could capture a negative perception of the legitimacy of the selection of experts.…”

Section: Behavior Of the Upwardly Mobile Individualsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Upward Mobility Harm Trust?

Suchon,

Villeval

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:While considered as appealing for positive and normative reasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that upward social mobility may harm interpersonal interactions. We report on an experiment testing the effect of upward social mobility on interpersonal trust. Individuals are characterized both by a natural group identity and by a status awarded by means of relative performance in a task in which natural identities strongly predict performance. Upward mobility is characterized by the access to the high status of individuals belonging to the natural group associated with a lower expected performance. We find that socially mobile individuals trust less than those who are not socially mobile, especially when the trustee belongs to the same natural group. In contrast, upward mobility does not affect trustworthiness. We find no evidence that interacting with an upwardly mobile individual impacts trust or trustworthiness. Keywords:Trust, trustworthiness, social mobility, social identity, experiment JEL codes:C92, J62 Does upward mobility harm trust? * Rémi Suchon† -Marie Claire Villeval ‡ January 12, 2018Abstract While considered as appealing for positive and normative reasons, anecdotal evidence suggests that upward social mobility may harm interpersonal interactions. We report on an experiment testing the effect of upward social mobility on interpersonal trust. Individuals are characterized both by a natural group identity and by a status awarded by means of relative performance in a task in which natural identities strongly predict performance. Upward mobility is characterized by the access to the high status of individuals belonging to the natural group associated with a lower expected performance. We find that socially mobile individuals trust less than those who are not socially mobile, especially when the trustee belongs to the same natural group. In contrast, upward mobility does not affect trustworthiness. We find no evidence that interacting with an upwardly mobile individual impacts trust or trustworthiness.

show abstract

“…Additionally, players with higher cognitive abilities reciprocated cooperation in the second round of this PDG significantly more than low intelligent subjects. Specifically, in a series of incentivized trust games, Corgnet et al (2015) showed that cognitive ability is positively correlated to trust but not with trustworthy behavior. Thus, individuals’ cognitive ability/intelligence has been associated with cooperative play in economic games.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Take the Money and Run: Psychopathic Behavior in the Trust Game

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study the association among different sources of individual differences such as personality, cognitive ability and risk attitudes with trust and reciprocate behavior in an incentivized experimental binary trust game in a sample of 220 (138 females) undergraduate students. The game involves two players, player 1 (P1) and player 2 (P2). In the first stage, P1 decides whether to trust and let P2 decide, or to secure an egalitarian payoff for both players. If P1 trusts P2, the latter can choose between a symmetric payoff that is double than the secure alternative discarded by P1, and an asymmetric payoff in which P2 earns more than in any other case but makes P1 worse off. Before the main experiment, we obtained participants’ scores for Abstract Reasoning (AR), risk attitudes, basic personality characteristics, and specific traits such as psychopathy and impulsivity. During the main experiment, we measured Heart Rate (HR) and ElectroDermal Activity (EDA) variation to account for emotional arousal caused by the decision and feedback processes. Our main findings indicate that, on one hand, P1 trust behavior associates to positive emotionality and, specifically, to the extraversion’s warmth facet. In addition, the impulsivity facet of positive urgency also favors trust behavior. No relation to trusting behavior was found for either other major personality aspects or risk attitudes. The physiological results show that participants scoring high in psychopathy exhibit increased EDA and reduced evoked HR deceleration at the moment in which they are asked to decide whether or not to trust. Regarding P2, we find that AR ability and mainly low disagreeable disinhibition favor reciprocal behavior. Specifically, lack of reciprocity significantly relates with a psychopathic, highly disinhibited and impulsive personality. Thus, the present study suggests that personality characteristics would play a significant role in different behaviors underlying cooperation, with extraversion/positive emotionality being more relevant for initiating cooperation, and low disagreeable disinhibition for maintaining it.

show abstract

To trust, or not to trust: Cognitive reflection in trust games

Cited by 49 publications

References 41 publications

Between inequality and sectarianism: who destroys generalised trust? The case of Lebanon

Between inequality and sectarianism: who destroys generalised trust? The case of Lebanon

Does Upward Mobility Harm Trust?

Take the Money and Run: Psychopathic Behavior in the Trust Game

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About