1 / 9

Trust and distrust in human communities

Trust and distrust in human communities. Linda Szijjártó-Tamás Bereczkei University of Pécs www.evolutionpsychology.com. Introduction. The propensity to trust others is the base of cooperation in every society. Understandably, it is closely associated with reciprocity.

soo
Download Presentation

Trust and distrust in human communities

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 and distrustin human communities Linda Szijjártó-Tamás BereczkeiUniversity of Pécs www.evolutionpsychology.com

  2. Introduction • The propensity to trust others is the base of cooperation in every society. Understandably, it is closely associated with reciprocity. • In the last decade Machiavellianism was intensively studied in evolutionary psychology. Machiavellianism is a combination of a behavioural strategy characterised by the tendency to manipulate and exploit others, and a worldview resting upon cynicism and opportunism. • The aim of the current study was to explore the extent to which highly Machiavellian people tend to trust others, and reciprocate favours. • Weweresearchingfortheanswer, whatkind of personaltraitsmodulatethesocialrelalionshipsfoundedonreciprocity.

  3. hypothesis • We presumed that there exists a negative correlation between the level of Machiavellianism and the level of trust. • We assumed a negative correlation between the level of Machiavellianism and thelevel of reciprocity. • We hypothesized that there is a positive correlation between Machiavellianism and the level of Agression-Hostility.

  4. Materials and methods 1. Participants: • 140 university students (60 males and 80 females), between 18 and 32 years of age, participated in our study (mean: 22.75, standard deviation: 2,762), all of them studying at various faculties of the University of Pécs. The subjects volunteered to participate in the experiment and received financial remuneration for participation. 2. Procedure: • We assessed the level of Machiavellism by the Mach IV. Questionnairedeveloped by Christie and Geis. It consists of 20 statements; half of them are taken from Machiavelli’s The Prince or represent its mentality, the other half expresses an oppositementality. Participantshaveto mark on a seven-grade Likert-type scale the extent they agree with the statements. • Tomeasurethepersonaltraits, weappliedtheZuckerman-KuhlmanQuiestionnare. The ZKPPQ wasdevelopedin 1993 inordertodefinethe main personalityfactors. Itcontains 99 items. The five main ZKPQ factorsareNeuroticism-Anxiety, Activity, Sociability, ImpulsiveSensation-Seeking, Agression-Hostility. • Tomodeleverydayrelationships, weusedtheso-calledTrust Game: a twopersonexperimentalsituationinwhichparticipantstook part with a strangerasaplayingcompanion.

  5. Results • Our first hypothesis has notbeen supported: correlationanalysisshowed no correlationbetweenthelevel of Machiavellianism and thelevel of trust (r=,872; p>,005). • 2. Our second hypothesis has been supported; correlationanalysisshowednegative and significantcorrelationbetweenthelevel of Machiavellianism and thelevel of reciprocity (r=-,165; p<,005). • 3. Correlation analysis showed no significant correlation between the level of Machiavellianismand thelevel of Agression-Hostility(r=,265; p=.001).

  6. Results

  7. Discussion • Our results suggest that there is no statisticallysignificantdifferencebetweenhigh and lowMachsamongthelevel of trustasfirstplayer. SoHighs’ and Lows’ behaviordoesnotdifferinthefirstmoverposition. HoweverassecondplayerHighMachsreciprocated less moneyasthepersonwhoreachedlowscoresonmachiavellianismscale. • Ourreasonssuggest, thattheperson, whoreachedhighscoresonmachiavellianism-sobasicallymanipulative and self-interestproving-aretendtonotreciprocateotherstrustandfavor. Howevertheydon’t show agressivetendencies. Theseresults show similaritywiththe idea thatmachiavellianpeoplehave a propensitytodefectin an anonymous, one-shotexperimental game (Gunthorsdottir et al., 2005).

  8. References • Christie, R., Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machivaellanism. New York: Academic Press • Fehr, B., Samsom, D., Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism: Twenty years later. In: Spielberger, C. D., Butcher, J. N. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment.Vol1. 9. 77-116. • Gunnthorsdottir, A., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (2002). Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game.Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(1), 49-66.

  9. Contact • For further information, please turn to : • The Evolutionary Psychology Research Group of Pécs • www.evolutionpsychology.com • Or contact the first author via the following e-mail address: • lindaszijjarto@gmail.com

More Related