BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Kuźmińska Anna O. (Uniwersytet Warszawski)
Tytuł
Problems with Measurement of Trust and Trustworthiness. What Best Predicts Trust Game Outcomes?
Zaufanie i wiarygodność: pomiar i wpływ informacji o przynależności grupowej
Źródło
Studia i Materiały / Wydział Zarządzania. Uniwersytet Warszawski, 2016, nr 2, cz. 2, s. 119-130, tab., bibliogr. 42 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Zaufanie, Wiarygodność, Psychologia grupy, Wyniki badań
Trust, Credibility, Group psychology, Research results
Uwagi
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
Badanie (N = 156) miało na celu sprawdzenie wartości predykcyjnej kwestionariuszowych miar zaufania w odniesieniu do zachowania w grze oraz możliwości zastąpienia ich przez inne narzędzia. Ponadto celem była replikacja uzyskanych przez innych badaczy wyników, demonstrujących, że informacja o przynależności grupowej drugiej osoby wpływa na ufne i godne zaufania zachowanie w grze. Po wypełnieniu kwestionariuszy, uczestnicy wzięli udział w Grze Zaufania, w której manipulowano informacją na temat przynależności grupowej drugiej osoby. Analiza wyników potwierdziła przewidywania na temat braku związku pomiędzy deklaratywnymi miarami zaufania i zachowaniem w grze. Wiarygodność przewidywała natomiast miara aprobaty społecznej. Wyniki nie potwierdziły negatywnego wpływu informacji o przynależności do grupy obcej na zaufanie i wiarygodność. Obecność informacji o drugiej osobie spowodowała wyższą ufność i wiarygodność w porównaniu do grupy kontrolnej. Dyskusja odnosi się do potencjalnych przyczyn otrzymanych wyników oraz ograniczeń prezentowanego badania. (abstrakt oryginalny)

The study (N = 156) explored the predictive power of attitudinal measures of trust and trustworthiness commonly used in surveys, as well as the possibility of replacing them with other instruments. Secondly, it aimed at replicating previous findings (e.g. Gleaser et al., 2000) that cues to other person's group membership affect trusting and trustworthy behaviour. Subjects filled in a number of questionnaires and took part in the Trust Game in which information about partner's nationality was manipulated. Analyses demonstrated the lack of correspondence between attitudinal and past behaviour measures of trust and trustworthiness and behaviour in the Trust Game. Trustworthiness was predicted by social desirability measure. No effects of other person's out-group membership were found in the current study. Cues to identity made participants more trustful and trustworthy towards the other person in comparison to the control condition. The interpretation of the obtained results, as well as the limitations of the study are discussed. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888.
  2. Arano, K., Parker, C. and Rory, T. (2010). Gender based Risk Aversion and Retirement Asset Allocation. Economic Inquiry, 48(1), 147-155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2008.00201.x.
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(86)90032-1.
  4. Baier, A.C. (1986). Trust and Antitrust, Ethics, 96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/292745.
  5. Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A., Fischbacher, U., Fehr, E. (2008). Oxytocin Shapes the Neural Circuitry of Trust and Trust Adaptation in Humans. Neuron, 58(4), 639-650, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009.
  6. Bekkers, R. (2001). The Social Desirability of Social Value Orientations. Report written during a research visit to the Department of Social Psychology, Free University, Amsterdam. Retrieved July 13, 2010, from www.fss.uu.nl/soc/homes/bekkers/sdresnot.pdf.
  7. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and McCabe, K.A. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behaviour, 10(1), 122-142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027.
  8. Borghans, L., Heckman, J.J., Golsteyn, B.H.H. and Meijers, H. (2009). Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion. Journal of European Economic Association, 7(2/3), 649-658, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w14713.
  9. Caldwell, C. and Clapham, S.E. (2003). Organizational trustworthiness: An international perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 47, 349-358.
  10. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioural Game Theory. Experiments in Strategic Interaction, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-004-0067-y.
  11. Croson, R. and Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and Culture: International Experimental Evidence from Trust Games. American Economic Review, 89(2), 251-279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.2.386.
  12. DeMaio, T.J. (1984). Social Desirability and Survey Measurement: A Review. In: C.F. Turner and E. Martin (eds.), Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 2, pp. 257-281). New York: Russell Sage.
  13. Dollar, D., Fisman, R. and Gatti, R. (2001). Are Women Really the 'Fairer' Sex? Corruption and Women in Government. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 46(4), 423-429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(01)00169-x.
  14. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Kawakami, K. and Hodson, G. (2002). Why Can't We Just Get Along? Interpersonal Biases and Interracial Distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 88-102, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.88.
  15. Wilczyńska, J. and Drwal, R.Ł. (1995). Opracowanie Kwestionariusza Aprobaty Społecznej (KAS) J. Wilczyńskiej i R.Ł. Drwala. In: R.Ł. Drwal (ed.) Adaptacja kwestionariuszy osobowości. Wybrane zagadnienia i techniki (s. 57-66). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  16. Fershtman, C. and Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 351-377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355301556338.
  17. Foddy, M., Platow, M.J. and Yamagishi, T. (2009). "Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations". Psychological Science 20, 419-422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x.
  18. Gillis, M.T. and Hettler, P.L. (2007). Hypothetical and Real Incentives in the Ultimatum Game and Andreoni's Public Goods Game: an Experimental Study. Eastern Economic Journal, 33(4), 491-510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/eej.2007.37.
  19. Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D.I., Scheinkman, J.A and Soutter, C.L. (2000). Measuring Trust. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811-846, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355300554926.
  20. Hardin, R. (2006). Trust. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  21. Hayashi, N. and Yamagishi, T. (1998). Selective Play: Choosing Partners in an Uncertain World. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 276-289, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_4.
  22. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Hill, K., Gil-White, F., Gurven, M., Marlowe, F., Patton, J. Q., Smith, N., &Tracer, D. (2005). Economic man in cross-cultural perspective: behavioural experiments in 15 small-scale societies, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795-815, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x05000142.
  23. Holm, H.J. and Danielson, A. (2005). Tropic Trust versus Nordic Trust: Experimental Evidence from Tanzania and Sweden. The Economic Journal, 115(4), 505-532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.00998.x.
  24. Kiyonari, T., Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S. and Cheshire, C. (2006). Does Trust Beget Trustworthiness? Trust and Trustworthiness in Two Games and Two Cultures: A Research Note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(3), 270-283, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900304.
  25. Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251-1288, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355300555475.
  26. Kofta, M. and Sedek, G. (2005). Conspiracy Stereotypes of Jews During Systemic Transformation in Poland. International Journal of Sociology, 35(1), 40-64.
  27. Kohn, M. (2008). Trust. Self-Interest and the Common Good. Oxford: University Press.
  28. Kuncel, N.R. and Tellegen, A. (2009). A Conceptual and Empirical Re-examination of the Measurement of the Social Desirability of Items: Implications for Detecting Desirable Response Style and Scale Development. Personnel Psychology, 62, 201-228, ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01136.x.
  29. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. W. (1997). Trust in Large Organizations. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 87(5), 333-338, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w5864.
  30. Lee, E. (2008). When Are Strong Arguments Stronger Than Weak Arguments? Deindividuation Effects on Message Elaboration in CMC.􀁢 Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved July 12, 2010, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p229883_index.html.
  31. Leslie, C.R. (2004). Trust, Distrust, and Antitrust, Texas Law Review, 3(82).
  32. Macy, M.W. and Skvoretz, J. (1998). The Evolution of Trust and Cooperation Between Strangers: A Computational Model. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 638-660, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657332.
  33. Platow, M.J. (1994). An Evaluation of the Social Desirability of Prosocial Self-Other Allocation Choices. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(1), 61-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9710884.
  34. Reicher, S.D., Spears, R. and Postmes, T. (1995). A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena. In W. Strobe and M. Hewstone (eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 161-198). Chichester, UK: Wiley, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779443000049.
  35. Ritov, I., and Kogut, T. (2011). Ally or adversary: the effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 96-103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.005.
  36. Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C. (1998). Not So Different After All: A Cross-discipline View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-405, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
  37. Shaw, J.I. (1976). Response-Contingent Payoffs and Cooperative Behaviour in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 1024-1033, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/e668292012-312.
  38. Slemrod, J.B. and Katuscak, P. (2005). Do Trust and Trustworthiness Pay Off? Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 621-646, http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.xl.3.621.
  39. Sztompka, P. (2007). Zaufanie. Fundament społeczeństwa. Kraków: Znak.
  40. Tanis, M. and Postmes, T. (2005). A Social Identity Approach to Trust: Interpersonal Perception, Group Membership and Trusting Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(3), 413-424, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.256.
  41. Yamagishi, T. and Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18(2), 129-166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02249397.
  42. Yamagishi, T., Kikuchi, M. and Kosugi, M. (1999). Trust, Gullibility, and Social Intelligence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 145-161, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-839x.00030.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1733-9758
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.7172/1733-9758.2016.22.9
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu