The Impact of the Promise Levels on Trust Decisions – The Mediation Effect of Cheating Notion

YANG Xue; ZHENG Lei; HU Xiao-Xuan; YU Yi-Wen

PDF(671 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2021, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (2) : 355-361.

The Impact of the Promise Levels on Trust Decisions – The Mediation Effect of Cheating Notion

Author information +

History +

Abstract

Trust refers to the beliefs about whether other people behave opportunistically in social and economic interactions. In terms of the rational signal theory, a person often makes social decisions (e.g. trust) based on perceived social information of others, such as language, gestures, and behaviors. Thus, people tend to make promises in order to convey social information that they are trustworthy and reliable. However, promises are characteristic of non-enforcement and non-binding, which may result in betrayal or deception. Previous studies found promises (vs non-promises) lead to more trust behaviors, however, it still remains unclear how promise levels impact trust decisions and what is the mechanism underlying this process. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the impact of promise levels on trust decisions. Next, we tested the mediation effect of cheating notion in the prediction of promise levels on trust behaviors. In order to test effects of promise levels on trust decisions, the current research conducted two studies using an adapted Trust Game (TG). In study 1, we recruited 46 college students who played as trustors completing 30 one-shot TG tasks with anonymous partners. Within each round, participants were informed the partner’s promise. The current study adopted three promise levels from previous studies: the high-level promises will return 14 yuan (70%), medium-level 10 yuan (50%), and low-level 6 yuan (30%). Next, they were allowed to decide whether to invest to their partners, then reported their social expectation for the anonymous partner. The results showed that participants were less likely to invest when they were informed high-level promises instead of medium- or low-level promises, suggesting high level promises inhibited trust decisions. In study 2, there were 28 college students participated in the similar experiment as study 1. Within this study, participants were additionally required to report the possibility of being deceived by their partners, which were regarded as indicators of cheating notion. The results not only consistently demonstrated the findings of study 1, but also found the cheating notion mediated the impacts of promise levels on trust decisions. Specifically, people perceived more cheating notion if their partner promised large payoffs rather than small or medium payoffs, thus resulted in distrust decisions. The present findings suggested cheating notion was critical in understanding the relationships between promise levels and trust decisions. In conclusion, people tend to trust the partners who promised small or medium payoffs instead of large payoffs. Given the non-binding nature of promises, individuals who promised large payoffs were more likely to deceive compared to people promised small or medium payoffs. Therefore, promises levels predicted trust behaviors through the mediation of cheating notion. The present study extended the previous findings by showing the impacts of promises levels on trust decisions, as well as the mediation effect of cheating notion underlying its process.

Key words

promise levels / trust decisions / cheating notion / rational signal theory

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

The Impact of the Promise Levels on Trust Decisions – The Mediation Effect of Cheating Notion[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2021, 44(2): 355-361

References

[1]张蔚, 张振, 高宇, 段华平, &; 吴兴南.经济决策中人际信任博弈的理论模型与脑机制[J].心理科学进展, 2016, 24(11):1780-1791 [2]袁博, 张振, 沈英伦, 黄亮, 李颖, &; 王益文.价值取向与社会距离影响经济决策的合作与冲突行为：的证据[J].心理科学, 2014, 37(4):962-967 [3]Balliet, D., & Van Lange, P. A.Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: a meta-analysis[J].Perspectives on Psychological Science A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, , 2001, 8(4):363-379 [4]Bacharach, M. , & Gambetta, D.Trust in signs[J].Trust in Society, 2001, 2(1):148-184 [5]Baumgartner, T.Fischbacher,U,Feierabend,A.,Lutz,K.,& Fehr,E.The neural circuitry of a broken promise[J].Neuron, 2009, 64(5):756-770 [6]Butler, J.Ciuliano,P,& Guiso,L.Trust and cheating[J].Economic Journal, 2016, 126(595):1703-1738 [7]Charness, G.amp; Dufwenberg,MPromises and partnership[J].Econometrica, 2006, 74(6):1579-1601 [8]Chen, J.amp; Houser,DPromises and lies: can observers detect deception in written messages[J].Experimental Economics, 2017, 20(2):396-419 [9]Decety, J.Jackson,PL.,Sommerville,J. A.,Chaminade,T.,& Meltzoff,A. N.The neural bases of cooperation and competition: an fMRI investigation[J].Neuroimage, 2004, 23(2):744-751 [10]Dunning, D.Anderson,JE.,Schl?sser,T.,Ehlebracht,D.,& Fetchenhauer,D.Trust at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward[J].Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2014, 107(1):122-141 [11]Ellingsen, T.amp; Johannesson,MPromises,threats and fairness[J].The Economic Journal, 2004, 114(495):397-420 [12]Evans, A.M.,& Krueger,JI.Elements of trust: risk and perspective-taking[J].Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2011, 47(1):171-177 [13]Evans, A.M.,& Krueger,JI.Bounded prospection in dilemmas of trust and reciprocity[J].Review of General Psychology, 2014, 20(1):17-28 [14]Glaeser, E.L.,Laibson,DI.,Scheinkman,J. A.,& Soutter,C. L.Measuring trust[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000, 115(3):811-846 [15]Hayes, A.F.,& Preacher,KJ.Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable[J].British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 2014, 67(3):451-470 [16]Ismayilov, H.amp; Potters,JWhy do promises affect trustworthiness,or do they?[J].Experimental Economics, 2016, 19(2):382-393 [17]Johnson, N.D.,& Mislin,AA .Trust games: A meta-analysis[J].Journal of Economic Psychology, 2011, 32(5):865-889 [18]Krueger, J.I.,Massey,AL,& DiDonato,T. E.A matter of trust: From social preferences to the strategic adherence to social norms[J].Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2008, 1(1):31-52 [19]López-Pérez, R.The power of words: A model of honesty and fairness[J].Journal of Economic Psychology, 2012, 33(3):642-658 [20]Ma, Q.Meng,L,& Shen,QYou have my word: reciprocity expectation modulates feedback-related negativity in the trust game[J].PLOS ONE, 2015, 10(2):e0119129-e0119129 [21]Montes, S.D.,& Zweig,D Do promises matter? an exploration of the role of promises in psychological contract breach[J].Journal of Applied Psychology, 2011, 94(5):1243-1260 [22]Rilling, J.K.,& Sanfey,AGThe Neuroscience of Social Decision-Making[J].Annual Review of Psychology, 2011, 62(1):23-48 [23]Sapienza, P.Toldra,A,& Zingales,LUnderstanding trust[J].Economic Journal, 2013, 123(573):1313-1332 [24]Schniter, E.Sheremeta,RM.,& Sznycer,D .Building and rebuilding trust with promises and apologies[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2013, 94(1):242-256 [25]Schweitzer, M.E.,Hershey,JC,& Bradlow,E. T.Promises and lies: restoring violated trust[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2006, 101(1):1-19 [26]Suchotzki, K.Crombez,G,Smulders,FT.,Meijer,E.,& Verschuere,B.The cognitive mechanisms underlying deception: An event-related potential study[J].International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2015, 95(3):395-405 [27]Tanis, M.amp; Postmes,TShort communication: a social identity approach to trust: interpersonal perception,group membership and trusting behaviour[J].European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 35(3):413-424 [28]Thielmann, I.amp; Hilbig,BE Trust: An integrative review from a person - situation perspective[J].Review of General Psychology, 2015, 19(3):249-277 [29]Tzieropoulos, H.The Trust Game in neuroscience: a short review[J].Social Neuroscience, 2013, 8(5):407-416 [30]Vanberg, C.Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations[J].Econometrica, 2008, 76(6):1467-1480 [31]Van Lange, P.A. MGeneralized trust: four lessons from genetics and culture[J].Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2015, 24(1):71-76 [32]Vohs, K.D.,Mead,NL,& Goode,MR.The psychological consequences of money[J].Science, 2006, 314(5802):1154-1156 [33]Wang, Y.Jing,Y,Zhang,Z,Lin,C,& Valadez,E. A .How dispositional social risk-seeking promotes trusting strangers: Evidence based on brain potentials and neural oscillations[J].Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2017, 146(8):1150-1163 [34]Wang, Y.Zhang,Z,Jing,Y,Valadez,EA.,& Simons,R. F .How do we trust strangers? The neural correlates of decision making and outcome evaluation of generalized trust[J].Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2016, 11(10):1666-1676 [35]Yamagishi, T.Mifune,N,Li,Y,Shinada,M,Hashimoto,H,Horita,Y.,et al..Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality[J].Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2013, 120(2):260-271 [36]Yamagishi, T, & Yamagishi, M.Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan[J].Motivation and Emotion, 1994, 18(2):129-166