Intention Information Transparency and Reciprocal Intention Promote Interpersonal Trust: Evidence from The Noisy Trust Game

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240218

Abstract

Abstract: Trust is the willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive exceptions of other’s behavior or intention. At present, most studies assume that both players are in an environment with sufficient information, and behavioral outcomes can perfectly reflect behavioral intentions. However, most daily interpersonal interactions contain elements of uncertainty or ambiguity, and results are not always consistent with intentions. Two theoretical models of interpersonal trust put forward different views. The result-based model emphasizes that people make decisions based on feedback results in a trust game. The intention-based model argues that what matters in interactions is the perception of other people's intentions. Therefore, some studies focus on the influence of the trust intention of the trustor on the reciprocity behavior of the trustee from the perspective of the trustee, and fail to fully characterize how the intention of the trustee affects the trust decision of the trustor in the trust relationship.
This research conducted two studies to explore the effects of intention information transparency and intention types on trust decisions using an adapted Trust Game - Noisy Trust Game (NTG). There is a certain probability that the choice of the trustee will be distorted into the opposite choice. Study 1 was a single-factor within-subject design. The dependent variable was the investment ratios. According to whether the trustee's intent is revealed, intention information was divided into two types: clear intention information and obscure intention information. While the no-noise condition was used as the control condition. Study 2 was a 2 (Intention types: reciprocity vs. violation) × 2 (Decision outcome: gain vs. loss) within-subjects design in the context of clear intention information. The dependent variable was the investment amounts. Because of the noise, The trustee's choice to return(reciprocity) may be distorted to retain keep(lose), and their choice to keep(violation) may be distorted to retain return (gain). The participants invested in any number from 0 to 10. RStudio and SPSS 25.0 were used for data analysis.
The results show that the main effect of information transparency is significant in study 1 (p < .001). After comparison, we find the clear intention group trust level is lower than the obscure intention group (p < .001) and the no-noise condition (p < .001). There is no significant difference in the trust level between the clear intention group and the no-noise condition. This suggests that obscure intention information inhibits trust decisions compared with clear intention information and the no-noise situation. The results of study 2 show that the main effects of intention types (p < .001) and outcome (p < .001), as well as their interaction (p < .01) are significant (p < .001). Simple effect analysis showed that in both gain and loss outcomes, the trust level of the participants in the reciprocal intention group is significantly higher than that in the violation intention group(p < .001). In the case of reciprocal intention, the trust level of the gain group is significantly higher than that of the loss group (p < .01), and there is no significant difference between the trust level of the gain group and the loss group (p > .05).
Through the noisy trust game task, this study reveals the influence of behavioral intention on trust decisions. Clear intention information and reciprocal intention are important basis for individuals to make trust decisions in interpersonal communication. This study supports the integration model of trust and verifies the significant influence of benevolence on trust decision-making. This study improves the application of interpersonal trust model in different situations. When others express reciprocal intention, individuals adjust their trust decisions based on their profit and loss. However, when the subjective intention of others is to violate trust, individuals' trust level is the same regardless of the result or loss. An important practical revelation is that, in social activities involving trust decisions (e.g., interpersonal communication or business transactions), some strategies to increase intention information transparency and reciprocal intention are positive to establish a good trust relationship.

Key words: intention information transparency, reciprocal intention, trust decisions, noisy trust game, interpersonal trust model

摘要： 信任决策是个体在不确定性下作出是否信任他人的风险性社会决策,是人类社会生活的重要组成部分。研究采用噪音信任博弈范式,旨在从互动环境与主体的双视角出发,验证意图信息透明度以及意图类型与决策结果在信任决策中的重要作用。实验1以无噪音条件作为基线,探索意图信息透明度（清晰vs. 模糊）对信任决策的影响。结果发现：被试在意图信息模糊条件下的信任水平显著低于无噪音和意图信息清晰条件;实验2探索在意图信息清晰时,意图类型（互惠vs. 违背）与决策结果（收益vs. 损失）对信任决策的影响。结果发现：不论结果是收益或损失,互惠意图组被试的信任水平都显著高于违背意图组。研究揭示了在人际互动中意图信息透明和互惠意图均是个体作出信任他人决策的重要依据。

关键词: 意图信息透明度, 互惠意图, 信任决策, 噪音信任博弈, 人际信任模型

Huang Liang, Li Sen, Chen Yonghui, Huang Wenxin, Zhang Xiusong, Chen Shunsen. Intention Information Transparency and Reciprocal Intention Promote Interpersonal Trust: Evidence from The Noisy Trust Game[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2024, 47(2): 402-410.

黄亮, 李森, 陈永辉, 黄文欣, 张秀松, 陈顺森. 意图信息透明与互惠意图促进人际信任：来自噪音信任博弈的证据^*[J]. 心理科学, 2024, 47(2): 402-410.

References

[1] 孙炳海, 王雅楠, 肖威龙, 范丽婷. (2022). 哪种道歉更易被原谅: 不同道歉类型对信任修复的影响. 心理科学, 45(2), 454-461.
[2] 孙熠譞, 张建华, 李菁萍. (2022). 间接互惠理论研究进展. 经济学动态, 1, 146-160.
[3] 孙忠强, 李月娇, 薛盼盼, 尹锡杨, 郁雯珺. (2019). 行为意图信息对广义互惠行为的影响. 应用心理学, 25(1), 59-68.
[4] 王益文, 张振, 原胜, 郭丰波, 何少颖, 敬一鸣. (2015). 重复信任博弈的决策过程与结果评价. 心理学报, 47(8), 1028-1038.
[5] 严瑜, 吴霞. (2016). 从信任违背到信任修复: 道德情绪的作用机制. 心理科学进展, 24(4), 633-642.
[6] Attanasi G., Battigalli P., Manzoni E., & Nagel R. (2019). Belief-dependent preferences and reputation: Experimental analysis of a repeated trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 167, 341-360.
[7] Berg J., Dickhaut J., & McCabe K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142.
[8] Calford, E. M. (2020). Uncertainty aversion in game theory: Experimental evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 176, 720-734.
[9] Clots-Figueras I., González R. H., & Kujal P. (2016). Trust and trustworthiness under information asymmetry and ambiguity. Economics Letters, 147, 168-170.
[10] Colquitt J. A., Scott B. A., & LePine J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.
[11] Cox, J. C., & Deck, C. A. (2006). Assigning intentions when actions are unobservable: The impact of trembling in the trust game. Southern Economic Journal, 73(2), 307-314.
[12] Fallon C. K., Panganiban A. R., Chiu P., & Matthews, G. (2017). The effects of a trust violation and trust repair in a distributed team decision-making task: Exploring the affective component of trust. In R. H. M. Goossens (Eds.), Advances in social & occupational ergonomics (pp. 447-459). Springer International Publishing.
[13] Ghosh, S. (2022). The impact of economic uncertainty and financial stress on consumer confidence: The case of Japan. Journal of Asian Business and Economic Studies, 29(1), 50-65.
[14] Haselhuhn M. P., Kennedy J. A., Kray L. J., van Zant A. B., & Schweitzer M. E. (2015). Gender differences in trust dynamics: Women trust more than men following a trust violation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 104-109.
[15] Janas, M., & Oljemark, E. (2021). Trust and reputation under asymmetric information. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 185, 97-124.
[16] Jung W. M., Lee Y. S., Wallraven C., & Chae Y. (2017). Bayesian prediction of placebo analgesia in an instrumental learning model. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0172609.
[17] Kanagaretnam K., Mestelman S., Nainar S. M. K., & Shehata M. (2010). Trust and reciprocity with transparency and repeated interactions. Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 241-247.
[18] Kanagaretnam K., Mestelman S., Nainar S. M. K., & Shehata M. (2014). Transparency and empowerment in an investment environment. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 2030-2038.
[19] Kartal M., Müller W., & Tremewan J. (2021). Building trust: The costs and benefits of gradualism. Games and Economic Behavior, 130, 258-275.
[20] Klackl J., Pfundmair M., Agroskin D., & Jonas E. (2013). Who is to blame? Oxytocin promotes nonpersonalistic attributions in response to a trust betrayal. Biological Psychology, 92(2), 387-394.
[21] Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88-106.
[22] Li C., Turmunkh U., & Wakker P. P. (2019). Trust as a decision under ambiguity. Experimental Economics, 22(1), 51-75.
[23] Lotito G., Migheli M., & Ortona G. (2020). Transparency, asymmetric information and cooperation. European Journal of Law and Economics, 50(2), 267-294.
[24] Lount R. B., Jr., Zhong C. B., Sivanathan N., & Murnighan J. K. (2008). Getting off on the wrong foot: The timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1601-1612.
[25] Ma F. L., Wylie B. E., Luo X. M., He Z. F., Jiang R., Zhang Y. L., & Evans A. D. (2019). Apologies repair trust via perceived trustworthiness and negative emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 758.
[26] Ma I., Sanfey A. G., & Ma W. J. (2020). The social cost of gathering information for trust decisions. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 14073.
[27] Mayer R. C., Davis J. H., & Schoorman F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
[28] McCabe K. A., Rigdon M. L., & Smith V. L. (2003). Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52(2), 267-275.
[29] Pesch A., Suárez S., & Koenig M. A. (2018). Trusting others: Shared reality in testimonial learning. Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 38-41.
[30] Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2005). On bad decisions and deciding badly: When intention-behavior inconsistency is regrettable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(1), 18-30.
[31] Pramiyanti A., Mayangsari I. D., Nuraeni R., & Firdaus Y. D. (2020). Public perception on transparency and trust in government information released during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal for Public Opinion Research, 8(3), 351-376.
[32] Radell M. L., Sanchez R., Weinflash N., & Myers C. E. (2016). The personality trait of behavioral inhibition modulates perceptions of moral character and performance during the trust game: Behavioral results and computational modeling. PeerJ, 4, e1631.
[33] Rand D. G., Fudenberg D., & Dreber A. (2015). It's the thought that counts: The role of intentions in noisy repeated games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 116, 481-499.
[34] Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., & Camerer C. (1998). Introduction to special topic forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
[35] Toussaert, S. (2017). Intention-based reciprocity and signaling of intentions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 137, 132-144.
[36] Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2), 105-112.
[37] van Den Akker, O. R., van Assen M. A., van Vugt M., & Wicherts J. M. (2020). Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 81, 102329.
[38] Yu M., Saleem M., & Gonzalez C. (2014). Developing trust: First impressions and experience. Journal of Economic Psychology, 43, 16-29.
[39] Zavolokina L., Schlegel M., & Schwabe G. (2021). How can we reduce information asymmetries and enhance trust in ‘The Market for Lemons’? Information Systems and e-Business Management, 19(3), 883-908.