Abstract

Trust is risky. The mere perception of strategically deceptive behavior that disguises intent or conveys unreliable information can inhibit cooperation. As gregariously social creatures, human beings would have evolved physiologic mechanisms to identify likely defectors in cooperative tasks, though these mechanisms may not cross into conscious awareness. We examined trust and trustworthiness in an ecological valid manner by (i) studying working-age adults, (ii) who make decisions with meaningful stakes, and (iii) permitting participants to discuss their intentions face-to-face prior to making private decisions. In order to identify why people fulfill or renege on their commitments, we measured neurophysiologic responses in blood and with electrodermal activity while participants interacted. Participants (mean age 32) made decisions in a trust game in which they could earn up to $530. Nearly all interactions produced promises to cooperate, although first decision-makers in the trust game reneged on 30.7% of their promises while second decision-makers reneged on 28%. First decision-makers who reneged on a promise had elevated physiologic stress using two measures (the change in adrenocorticotropin hormone and the change in skin conductance levels) during pre-decision communication compared to those who fulfilled their promises and had increased negative affect after their decisions. Neurophysiologic reactivity predicted who would cooperate or defect with 86% accuracy. While self-serving behavior is not rare, those who exhibit it are stressed and unhappy.

Highlights

  • Random assignment resulted in DecisionMaker 1 (DM1)-Decision-Maker 2 (DM2) pairings that were 43.1% mixed gender, 86.3% who fell into different income categories that differed on average by $22,500 per year, and 21.6% who had an age difference of more than 10 years

  • Measurements were collected in three domains: behavioral, physiological, and self-report

  • This study demonstrated that cheap talk affects decisions for most people, even during the last round of strategic choices with high stakes at risk

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is quite difficult for individuals in a room not to talk to one another. Most studies of strategic decision-making do not allow individuals to talk. Faceto-face interactions are typically prohibited as biasing decisions (Armstrong, 2006). Face-to-face interactions can influence decisions because of gender, ethnicity, apparel, tattoos, attractiveness, and other aspects that may activate stereotypes (Kurzban et al, 2001; Wright and Sladden, 2003). The lack of communication severely limits the generalizability of findings to most out-of-lab interactions in which people talk, including business and political negotiations

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call