1 / 42

Trust: Not a Key but The Key to Prosocial Behavior

Trust: Not a Key but The Key to Prosocial Behavior. Paul A.M. Van Lange VU University Amsterdam Van der Gaag Symposium (June 24, 2014) For updated information, see www.paulvanlange.com.

rene
Download Presentation

Trust: Not a Key but The Key to Prosocial Behavior

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Trust:Not a Key but The Key to Prosocial Behavior Paul A.M. Van Lange VU University Amsterdam Van der Gaag Symposium (June 24, 2014) For updated information, see www.paulvanlange.com

  2. The KEY task for authorities (and peers) is toManage Conflicts between Self-Interest and Collective Interest- Promoting a sustainable society- Promoting a healthy society- Promoting a prosperous society- Promoting a safe society- And in a sense, promoting a fair society (and trusting society)

  3. Across various social dilemmas, key variables are:1. Social value orientation (motives/goals)2. Reward and punishment (tools for peers and authorities)3. Trust (state of mind) Van Lange, P. A. M. Balliet, D., Parks, C. D., & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Social dilemmas: The psychology of human cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press.

  4. DecomposedGame (formeasuring SVO) ____________________________________________ A B CYouget 480 540 480Othergets 80 280 480____________________________________________ Note: “Other” is hypothetical. Points are valuable to bothself and other.

  5. SocialValueOrientations:(1) prosocialorientation (50-60%) joint outcomes and equality in outcomes (MaxJoint and Mindiff)(2) individualistic orientation (20-30%) Own outcomes (MaxOwn)(3) competitive orientation (10-15%) Relative advantage (MaxRel)

  6. Socialinteractionsprosocialsdevelopcooperativeinteraction, butrapidlyassimilate to noncooperativeothers; individualistscooperateiftheycan benefit bydoingso; competitorshardly ever cooperate.Prosocials = ConditionalcooperatorsIndividualists = InstrumentalcooperatorsCompetitors = Consistent noncooperators

  7. - Willingness to sacrifice in close relationships- Smilingwhen we talk, notwhen we pose for a picture to be taken- Donations to noblecauses- Neuroscientificevidenceregarding responses toviolations of justice- Volunteering, includingparticipating in experiments!

  8. Where do differences in social value orientation come from?: Social value orientations are partially rooted in different patterns of social interaction spanning from early childhood to young adulthood.

  9. SVO and Siblings Van Lange, P.A.M.,Otten,W., De Bruin, E.N.M., & Joireman , J.A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitiveorientation: Theory and preliminaryevidence. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73, 733-746

  10. Age and SVO Age Category (Van Lange, P.A.M.,Otten,W., De Bruin, E.N.M., & Joireman , J.A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitiveorientation: Theory and preliminaryevidence. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73, 733-746.

  11. Butpersonality – includingsvo - is notonlyshapedbycircumstances, it is alsorevealed in the selection (oravoiding) of situations…

  12. Percentages among first-year students Van Lange, P. A. M., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 297-284. 

  13. Psychology Economics (n= 158) (n = 150) Prosocials 57% 36% Individualists 37% 47% Competitors 6% 17% Van Lange, P. A. M., Schippers, M., & Balliet, D. (2011). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 297-284. 

  14. Two studies Study 2: Italy (497 participants, 250 women, meanage 32 years) svo was measured1-4 weeks before the 2004 EuropeanElection actualvoting was assessedone week afterElection Study 3: Netherlands (1,472 participants, 751 women, meanage 46 years, sample representative of Dutch Adultpopulation, TNS/NIPO) svoassessed in May 2002, eightmonthsbeforegeneralelections in January 2003, afterwhich we assessedvoting.

  15. Percentages of svo across four categories (Study 2, Italy, 2004) Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012).  Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals?  From games to ideology, political preferences and voting.  European Journal of Personality, 26, 461-473.

  16. Percentages of svo across four categories (Study 3, Netherlands, 2002) Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2012).  Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals?  From games to ideology, political preferences and voting.  European Journal of Personality, 26, 461-473.

  17. Social value orientation = motivation if you want to act prosocially, you do Cooperation in social dilemmas = motivation if you want to act cooperatively, you can But often, we may not act prosocially simply because we did not consider, or even “see” that prosocial or “cooperative” option...

  18. SocialmindfulnessOnemorningon a vacation trip in Italy, myson Dion (thenabout 11 yearsold) asked me whichmarmalade I was going to getforbreakfast. Therewerethreeleft, oneblackberry and twostrawberrymarmalade.

  19. I said: blackberry (while I read the newspaper)He said: But that is notverynice, dad. You do notleavemyanychoice, ifyouchooseblackberry.

  20. This was an excellent idea … theoretically and methodologically.It combines “toseeit” (perception and skill) with “actinguponit” (motivation) toproduce “sociallymindful” behavior.(Literature alwaysfocused on eitherperception or motivation)Toseethatoneblocksanother’s route with a shopping cart !

  21. We constructed a measure (basedonearlierwork of Hazel Markus and ToshioYamagishi) which we call “socialmindfulness. Itaskspeople to make a choiceamong 3 options (2 identical, 1 unique) concerning cups of marmalade, pens, hats, soccerballs, and soon. Or we usedfourpictureswithoneuniqueattribute, orsometimesnouniqueattributes (as filler)

  22. Filler

  23. Recent findings (to start a newline of research)[a] Instructing Concern forOthersenhancessocialmindfulness[b] People are more sociallymindful to friendsthan to strangers[c] People are more sociallymindful to thosewithtrustworthyfacesthan to thosewithuntrustworthyfaces[d] Associatedwithhonesty/humility (r = .32), agreeableness (r = .24), socialvalueorientation (r = .40), and empathic concern (r = .28) and perspectivetaking (r = .21) (butnot disstress, r = .07, ns, orother Big Five variables) Van Doesum, N., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P A. M. (2013). Social mindfulness: Skill and will to navigate the social world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 86-103.

  24. Socialvalueorientation and socialmindfulness • Basicorientations, relevant to manysituations, and peoplemightautomaticallyrelyon these “natural” tendencies. The focus is on the self – as motivator, perceiver, orboth. - For trust, this is different. There is a lot of contextualinformationthatfeedsorundermines trust (other’s face, race, age …). The focus is on the otherthat we perceive (even ifthroughourown lens).

  25. Social dilemmas: Reward and PunishmentParadigm (Fehr & Gächter, 2002):people are able to punish another person in a four-person group; they pay one MU so that another person loses 3 MU.Fehr, E., Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.

  26. Reward and Punishment- Both incentives work – about equally well- Works better if the punishment is more costly- Strong cultural influencesBalliet, D., Mulder, L. B., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, andcooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 594-615.

  27. Balliet, D. P., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013).  Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 363-379.

  28. Generalized Trust is alsostronglyshapedby cultureGenerally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people?” (1 = most people can be trusted and 2 = you can never be too careful when dealing with people).

  29. Levels of Trust in VariousNations (World ValuesSurvey) Balliet, D. P., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013).Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 363-379.

  30. Generalized Trust

  31. What is most efficient? • Ifeverybodycooperates, AND • Ifnobodypunishes  For bothbeliefs, prosociality AND trust are crucial! But canoneinfluenceprosociality and trust?

  32. What have I learnedabout trust? • We trust strangerstoolittle – most likelybecause we rely on a theory of self-interest (myth of self-interest) • Onecan indeed influence trust – it is biologicallybased, but is itgeneticallybased? • It is a powerfulcorrelate and determinant of cooperation in socialdilemmas • For review see, Balliet D., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1090-1112.

  33. Genetics of Trust 1. I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people 2. I completely trust most other people 3. When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people ® 1,012 twins participants, withgoodrepresentation of all fivetwingroups (identicaltwins, men, women; non-identical, men, women, mixed) Test-retestreliability over twomonths: r = .76 (and .54, fortrust-in-self) Average heritabilityfortraitsotherthan trust (49%, and thisincludesmeasurementswithlowertest-retestreliability.

  34. Intelligence (h2~ 80%) • Depression (h2~ 50%) • Classic personality variables (h2~ 40%) • Divorce, satisfaction with work, AND political orientation (h2> 30%)

  35. So, what is the heritability of (Generalized) Trust? Guesses? 0 – 25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

  36. Trust in Others: h2 = 5% Trust in Self: h2 = 13% Van Lange, P.A.M., Vinkhuyzen, A., & Posthuma, D. (2014). Geneticinfluences are virtually absent for trust. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93880.

  37. Trust is the keytoprosocialbehavior: - becausecooperation without trust is largely a utopiaunlikely tobematerialized - because trust promotes the effectiveness of various variables or interventations, such as reward and punishment - because trust is a malleable state of mind (orientation)

  38. Trust is a “state of mind”, largelynongenetic, and the sources of promoting trust are “tremendous” Reciprocity-based trust Reputation-based trust Identity-based trust Face-based trust “Association”-based trust (perhapsembodiment) THM #1: USE THESE SOURCES!

  39. Trust may even help youto go forthatrisky action thatoneonly does ifthere is enough (perceived) support fromothers. So, with the World Cup allaround, my THM # 2 is simple….

  40. Without trust in oneanother oneneverwins

  41. Trust is a challenge – forboth actors and “observers“ - leaders invite distrustbecause of unilateral dependence – “better safe than sorry” - and leaders do become a littllelesstrustworthy over time. Van Prooijen, J. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2014, Eds). Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders. Cambridge University Press.

More Related