Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1182–1189 | Cite as

The relationship between interpersonal responsibility and interpersonal trust: A longitudinal study

  • Yu Zeng
  • Ling-Xiang XiaEmail author
Article
  • 199 Downloads

Abstract

Although the relationship between personality and interpersonal trust has been supported, the longitudinal effect of personality on interpersonal trust (especially the unique effects of indigenous Chinese personality traits) has been ignored by prior studies. The present study explored the longitudinal relationship between interpersonal responsibility (an indigenous Chinese interpersonal trait) and interpersonal trust among 1882 undergraduate students over a 6-month interval. Latent structural equation modelling showed that interpersonal responsibility predicted interpersonal trust 6 months later, and the path coefficient from interpersonal trust to interpersonal responsibility was marginally significant. Additionally, the results of hierarchical linear regression analyses showed that after controlling for the Big Five personality traits, interpersonal responsibility predicted interpersonal trust at the same time and over time. These results suggest that interpersonal responsibility may have a unique effect on interpersonal trust that is independent of the effects of the Big Five traits, thus extending the research regarding the relationship between personality and interpersonal trust.

Keywords

Interpersonal responsibility Interpersonal trust Big five traits Longitudinal analysis 

Notes

Funding

This manuscript was supported by a Grant Project of the Human Social Science Research Program of the Ministry of Education (14YJA190011) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU1509107).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Author A declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality constructs: Is the five-factor model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407–433.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032004003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S., & Zhang, J. X. (2003). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment, 15, 280–289.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheung, F. M., Zhang, J. X., & Cheung, S. F. (2010). From indigenous to cross-cultural personality: The case of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 295–308). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cheung, F. M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leong, F. T. L. (2011). Toward a new approach to the study of personality in culture. American Psychologist, 66, 593–603.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Fan, W. (2013). From Chinese to cross-cultural personality assessment: A combined emic–etic approach to study personality in culture. In M. Gelfand, Y. Y. Hong, & C. Y. Chiu (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 117–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cole, D. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Manifest variable path analysis: Potentially serious and misleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, 19, 300–315.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R: The revised NEO Personality Inventory. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  8. Courbalay, A., Deroche, T., Prigent, E., Chalabaev, A., & Amorim, M. A. (2015). Big five personality traits contribute to prosocial responses to others’ pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 94–99.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 667–684.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015741.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans, A. M., & Revelle, W. (2008). Survey and behavioral measurements of interpersonal trust. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1585–1593.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.07.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, X. P., & Liu, J. P. (2017). Interpretative bias of positive and negative events in high and low self-supporting undergraduates. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(4), 709–713.  https://doi.org/10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2017.04.025. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleeson, W., & Leicht, C. (2006). On delineating and integrating the study of variability and stability in personality psychology: Interpersonal trust as illustration. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 5–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freitag, M., & Bauer, P. C. (2016). Personality traits and the propensity to trust friends and strangers. The Social Science Journal, 53, 467–476.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabrenya, W. K., & Hwang, K. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gong, X., Xia, L. X., Sun, Y., Guo, L., Carpenter, V. C., Fang, Y., & Chen, Y. (2017). Proposal allocation ratio as a moderator of interpersonal responsibility effects on hostile decision-making in the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01959.
  18. Gottman, J. M., & Rushe, R. H. (1993). The analysis of change: Issues, fallacies, and new ideas. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(6), 907–910.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiraishi, K., Yamagata, S., Shikishima, C., & Ando, J. (2008). Maintenance of genetic variation in personality through control of mental mechanisms: A test of trust, extraversion, and agreeableness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 79–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krueger, J. I., Massey, A. L., & DiDonato, T. E. (2008). A matter of trust: From social preferences to the strategic adherence to social norms. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ledgerwood, A., & Sherman, J. W. (2012). Short, sweet, and problematic? The rise of the short report in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(1), 60–66.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611427304.
  24. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Liu, J., & Xia, L. X. (2018). The direct and indirect relationship between interpersonal self-support traits and perceived social support: A longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 37(1), 73–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9491-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (Vol. 3, pp. 159–180). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17, 136–142.Google Scholar
  30. Meier, B. P., Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). Bringing out the agreeableness in everyone: Using a cognitive self-regulation model to reduce aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1383–1387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, k. (2006). Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning, 37, 523–540.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606073424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  33. Rast, P., & Hofer, S. M. (2014). Longitudinal design considerations to optimize power to detect variances and covariances among rates of change: Simulation results based on actual longitudinal studies. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 133–154.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034524.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. F. (2001). Effects of study duration, frequency of observation, and sample size on power in studies of group differences in polynomial change. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 387–401.  https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.6.4.387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross, W. H., & Wieland, C. (1996). Effects of interpersonal trust and time pressure on managerial mediation strategy in a simulated organizational dispute. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 228–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551–566.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Snijders, C., & Keren, G. (2001). Do you trust? Whom do you trust? Advances in Group Processes, 18, 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tekle, F. B., Tan, F. E., & Berger, M. P. (2011). Too many cohorts and repeated measurements are a waste of resources. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(12), 1383–1390.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.023. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Timmons, A. C., & Preacher, K. J. (2015). The importance of temporal design: How do measurement intervals affect the accuracy and efficiency of parameter estimates in longitudinal research? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 41–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.961056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wang, D., & Cui, H. (2008). An extension of etic-emic hypothesis of Chinese-Western personality differences: Evidences from QZPS and NEO PI-R. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40(3), 327–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, D., Cui, H., & Zhou, F. (2005). Measuring the personality of Chinese: QZPS versus NEO PI-R. Asia Journal of Social Psychology, 8(1), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xia, L. X. (2010). The law and shaping of self-supporting. Hefei: Anhui Education Press.Google Scholar
  45. Xia, L. X. (2011). Self-supporting personality and psychosomatic symptoms: The testing of trait-stress-symptom congruence and mediating model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43, 650–660.Google Scholar
  46. Xia, L. X., & Huang, X. T. (2008). Development of self-supporting personality scale for adolescent students. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40, 593–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Xia, L. X., Huang, X. T., Wan, L., & Yang, H. S. (2011a). Self-supporting personality and practical problem solving. Psychological Development and Education, 27, 52–58.Google Scholar
  48. Xia, L. X., Wan, L., Song, Y., & Yang, Y. L. (2011b). The relationship between interpersonal self-support and depression. Acta Psychologica Sinic, 43, 1175–1184.  https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.01175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xia, L. X., Ding, C., Hollon, S. D., & Fan, Q. (2012). The relationship between interpersonal self-support and depression: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 31, 835–851.  https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2012.31.8.835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xia, L. X., Shi, X. L., Zhang, Y., & Hollon, S. D. (2013). Interpersonal self-support and attentional bias on negative and positive interpersonal information. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1246–1259.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.738299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Xia, L. X., Gao, X., Wang, Q., & Hollon, S. D. (2014a). The relations between interpersonal self-support traits and emotion regulation strategies: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 779–786.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.05.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Xia, L. X., Xu, X. Y., Hollon, S. D., & Zhang, J. F. (2014b). The relation of self-supporting personality, big five personality and depression. Current Psychology, 33, 630–643.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9233-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xia, L. X., Ding, C., Hollon, S. D., & Yi, Y. (2015). Interpersonal self-support, venting coping and post - traumatic stress disorder symptoms among adolescent earthquake survivors. Current Psychology, 34, 14–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9237-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xie, Q. Z., Fan, W. Q., Wong, P., & Cheung, F. M. (2016). Personality and parenting style as predictors of life satisfaction among Chinese secondary students. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(3), 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yang, K. S. (1995). Chinese social orientation: An integrative analysis. In T. Y. Lin, W. S. Tseng, & E. K. Yeh (Eds.), Chinese societies and mental health (pp. 19–39). Hong Kong, China: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Yang, K. S. (2004). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the Chinese self from the perspective of social and individual orientation. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 22, 11–80.Google Scholar
  57. Yang, K. S. (2006). Indigenous personality research: The Chinese case. In U. Kim, K.-S. Yang, & K.-K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 285–314). New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28662-4_13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yang, J., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Dai, X., Yao, S., Cai, T., & Gao, B. (1999). Cross-cultural personality assessment in psychiatric populations: The NEO-PI—R in the People's Republic of China. Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 359–368.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhang, R. R., Xiang, X. L., & Yong, C. (2014). The relationship between interpersonal self-support traits and depression among undergraduate students: The mediating role of interpersonal coping. Psychological Development and Education, 30, 193–199.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and Public AdministrationMinnan Normal UniversityZhangzhouChina
  2. 2.Faculty of PsychologySouthwest UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations