Social trust, values & assurances

1. Social trust, values & assurances George Cvetkovich Western Washington University

2. ROUTES TO RELIANCE • Trust – based on attribution of individual’s character • Mixed mode: emotion & reason • Feeling of salient value similarity (SVS) • Contextual assurances (constraints) • Established social relationships – Yamagishi et al (1994, 1995, 1998) • Relational models – (Haslam & Fiske, 2005; Iacoboni et al., 2004) • Universal motives: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equity-matching, market pricing • Brain circuitry? • Past record – confidence – Earle & Siegrist (2006) • Laws & other situational constraints

3. Overview • Lake Whatcom Study • Salient Value Similarity (SVS) and “dimensions” of trust • Personal saliency of values • Self interest and saliency of values • Forest Management research • SVS and perceived management actions • Plans for cross-national research • Pilot study

4. Approaches to understanding trust • “Dimensions” of trust • Universally applicable characteristics of other person (correlate) • Normative • Descriptive studies: Competence and caring (Johnson, 1999); fairness/justice • Salient values similarity (Earle & Cvetkovich, 1995) • Context specific • Social psychological process • Perceived agreement or similarity about what important

5. SVS studies – examples • Inference tracing • Earle (2004) Global climate change • Case studies • Gowda (1999) Native American leader • Surveys • Poortinga & Pidgeon (2006, in press) Genetically modified food • Perez-Floriano, Flores-Mora & MacLean (2006, in press) risk communication - 5 countries • Siegrist & Cvetkovich (2000) trust & knowledge • Experiments • Siegrist, Cvetkovich & Gutscher, H. (2001) Cancer clusters • Earle & Cvetkovich (1997) World views & management policies

6. Comparisons of SVS & “dimensions” of trust • Failed to show support for SVS • Metlay (1999) – US Dept of Energy • Poortinga & Pidgeon (2003) – 5 risk mgt. areas • Showed support for SVS • Allum (2005) - GMOs • Poortinga & Pidgeon (in press) – GMOs • Earle (2004) – global climate change • Problems • Measures confounded “dimensions” (e.g., competence and care) • Treated SVS as an added variable • Failed to recognize that “dimensions” are values

7. Lake Whatcom study Nakayachi & Cvetkovich • Controversy over risks posed by motor boats to quality of a municipal water supply for 90k+ • 4 involved groups • Boats Off! • Health Community • County Council • Watershed Studies Institute • County Council passed ban of 2-cycle engines, 2009

8. Measures (N = 748)[http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~wisr/LakeWhatcomMotorBoatBanSurvey.doc] • Salient value similarity • “Degree group shares your overall values concerning allowing or banning motor boating?” • “Dimensions” of trust • “Indicate your view about group” • Competency • Fairness / justice • Salience of controversy-specific values • “Importance in making a decision about ban of motorboats?” • Water quality • Recreational choice

9. Correlations (r) trust, salient value similarity, and approval of a motor boat ban (p < .001) Trust: 1= complete distrust; 8= complete trust

10. Step-wise regression analysis of TRUST- β weights & R2s (p<.0001) • Trust: 1= comp. distrust; 8=comp. trust;SVS: 1=comp. different; 5=comp. share; Dimensions: 1=st.disagree; 5=st.agree; Saliency ofValues: 1= very unimport.; 5=very import.

11. Self interests and SVs & SVS • Every applied theory of behavior in the social and organizational sciences (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Miller, 1999) • Risk management – NIMBY; stakeholders • Trust based on encapsulated interest– Hardin (2004) • Lake study self-interests: Boater & lake water use

12. Self interests and SVs & SVS • Fairness important to boaters (r=.12) – losing position • Competency important to lake water users (r=-.10) • Water quality salient for 1) lake water users (r=-.10) & 2) non-boaters (r=-.22) • Recreational choice salient for 1) boaters (r=.33) and 2) non-lake water users (r=.12) • Boaters share values with Healthy Community (r=.33); do not share values with Boats Off! (r= -.47) , Council (r=-.13), Institute (r= -.20) • Lake water users share values with Boats Off! (r= -.16) All rs: p<.01 Value saliency: 1=not; 5=completely; Boater: 1=never; 5=very frequently; Water from lake: 1=yes; 2=maybe; 3=no

13. Conclusions – Lake Whatcom study - high-concern risk controversy • Salient value similarity important as concept and measure • Trust “dimensions” important • Fairness and competency not always salient • Determinant or correlate of trust? • Saliency of controversy-specific values important • Varies with trust target group (e.g., contending/non-contending groups) • Self-interest important to saliency of values • Overemphasized?

14. Forest Management Studies • Cvetkovich & Winter • Threatened & endangered species • Wild fire • Telephone surveys • Representative samples • California, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado • SVS and perceived management behavior

15. Measures • Salient value similarity • Consistency of management behavior with own values • Legitimacy of any inconsistencies • Results: • Trust is an increasing function of perceived similar shared values + management behavior consistent with values + legitimate inconsistencies

16. 1 = not trust; 8 = completely trust (n=979) Mean trust of species management

17. Mean trust of wildfire management • 1 = not trust; 8 = completely trust (n=1024)

18. Planned Japan/US Comparisons • Dynamic identity • Japan & US similarities or differences depend on specific contexts not on abiding cultural differences (e.g. collectivism / individualism) affecting all functioning • e.g., Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martãnez, 2000

19. Interpersonal trust versus social trust • Interpersonal trust - national differences • Personal characteristics, established social relationships, interpersonal links, shared category membership • Social trust - risk management context • High stakes (economic, health, life) • Individual may have little knowledge of risk issue • Person being relied on: • not only a stranger, but frequently in a role of designated responsibility • representative of political and /or other group (government, business/industry, environmental) which are stereotyped by the public

20. Working question • Will national differences found for interpersonal trust be replicated for social trust or will national similarities related to concern for issue, past performance of manager, saliency of values, risk perception, etc. be found?

21. Pilot study – US only • 3 risk management issues • Genetically modified foods • Nanotechnology • Avian flu • “Biotechnology is the application of techniques for transferring the DNA from one species into another. One application of biotechnology is the genetic engineering of food crops. …” • “Based only on the information provided, how much are you willing to rely on each of the following individuals to manage … ?” • “(Shares / not shares) your views about …” • “(Good / not good past) record in managing …” • “(Same / not same) political affiliation” • “(Personally known / unknown) by a friend(s)” • “(Graduated / not graduated) from your university”

22. PILOT RESULTS • No priming effect

23. Willingness to rely – GMOs1=strongly unwilling; 4=neither; 7=strongly willing

24. Willingness to rely – Nanotechnology1=strongly unwilling; 4=neither; 7=strongly willing

25. Willingness to rely – Avian flu 1=strongly unwilling; 4=neither; 7=strongly willing

27. 1=GMO; 2=nano; 3=flu • 1 fear • 2 pride • 3 confusion • 4 confidence • 5 anger • 6 hope • 7 indignation • 8 joy • 9 disgust • 10 appreciation