Abstract
Research on trustworthiness and trust behavior so far has followed different methodological approaches and has generated conflicting evidence regarding their interrelationships. While several authors follow the definition of trustworthiness as a belief or a formed expectancy by Person A about Person B to do X (usually to reward trust), different hypotheses can be derived regarding its formation, depending on whether one treats trustworthiness as incentive-based or as a propensity or disposition. Additionally, distinct measurement approaches for trustworthiness exist, depending on the mode of data collection. With theoretical claims that trustworthiness represents “the crucial variable” (Hardin in Trust, 2006) for understanding and explaining successful cooperation based on trust, the article proposes the use of para-data in the form of response latency measurement to enhance the understanding of the thought processes behind forming an assessment of trustworthiness. The study uses pooled data from two CATI surveys conducted in Germany in 2012 to test hypotheses on the underlying cognitive process of forming an expectation of trustworthiness by applying the techniques of both response latency measurement and Cox regression models. We find that the applied survey measures of trustworthiness generate inconsistent results regarding the underlying process of forming expectations. Consequences for future research are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Freitag and Traunmüller (2009, p. 9) distinguish dispositions from experiences to understand the logic of trust, but they differentiate with regards to the two facets of particularized and generalized trust. We will limit our study to the investigation of trustworthiness as we will not be able to account for trusting behavior during telephone interviews. We return to this point later.
It appears obvious that the assumption that expected trustworthiness can be equated with trust is misguided, as it ignores the conditions of an action based on trust that is shaped by G and L as well p. Expectancies can be formed without trusting. We cannot elaborate on that further, see Hardin (2006) on these issues.
We put the player in quotation marks as we did not perform any real experiments or trust games. The respondents in the survey were merely put in two situations resembling their role in games, although there did not exist any dyadic interactions. Respondents answered question from the perspective of “Player A” and “Player B”, or the trustor and the trustee of the traditional trust game, respectively. Details follow in the section on methods and data.
Obviously, this relates well to the ideas of rational choice theory, where actions are explained by variation of conditions given a set of preferences, levels of information and assumptions about the rationality of actors (Opp 1999).
Prior experiences are considered a crucial predictor to explain action based on trust (Fehr et al. 2002, p. 540).
Usually the amount sent is doubled or tripled and the trustee decides about the amount to be sent back. Ashraf, Bohnet, and Piankov (2006, p. 197) go so far to define trustworthiness by this measurement.
To clarify, we do not accept the proposal “that trust is the expectation about other people’s behavior” and that “both the answers to the WVS-question and the sender’s expectation in a traditional trust game can be used as a measure” for trust (Sapienza et al. 2013, p. 1330). Trust represents an action based on an expectation.
See Neumann (2014) for additional validity checks of latency measures.
We will document results for both valid and invalid measurements as an additional feature to our study.
Three cases were dropped from the sample because of ineligibility due to age.
Descriptive statistics for the Cox models are generated by applying the stset-command in Stata. These summary statistics can be provided upon request. Note that for all these models, the proportionality assumption holds.
Cronbach’s \(\alpha \) for the trust index comes in at only 0.63, which has to be considered rather low. To circumvent the low reliability of the trust index, analyses were performed with single answers to the generalized trust item, but results did not change at all. Result can be provided upon request from the authors.
These findings are not in line with the results in Mulligan et al. (2003, p. 297), who generate similar results for measurements with and without validity coding.
With respect to the skewed distribution of the dependent variable, we also estimated two-tier regression models via the craggit-command in Stata (Cragg 1971; Burke 2009). Results do not differ in the sense that, for the first stage, answers with the highest level of behavioral trustworthiness were given fast and prior experience mattered, whereas generalized trust could not be considered as a relevant predictor. The coefficients for socio-demographic variables showed consistent results within the first stage model. Same holds for the part of the truncated regression model, although the latency scores lose their predictive power for the remaining levels or reported behavioral trustworthiness (measurements were validated, \(n=239\)). Results are not shown, but can be obtained upon request.
The results could be criticized regarding the potential confounding effect of generalized trust on the dependent variable of expected trustworthiness. Both variables correlate at 0.22 \((p<0.05, n=569)\), which can be considered rather low. Dropping the generalized trust variable from the model yields the same results, with both indices for the response latencies as the only variables that explain the variation of the responses to the trustworthiness item T2. Results can be provided upon request.
Notable exemptions exist: For instance, Przepiorka and Diekmann (2013, p. 3) test a model proposed by Posner (1998) by an experimental sequence where the signal of trustworthiness is sent by a trustee prior to the placement of trust by Player A, which conforms to the causal structure of a trust relationship.
References
Altmann, S., Dohmen, T., Wibral, M.: Do the reciprocal trust less? Econ. Lett. 99(3), 454–457 (2008)
Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I., Piankov, N.: Decomposing trust and trustworthiness. Exp. Econ. 9(3), 193–208 (2006)
Bassili, J.N.: Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a CATI survey. Public Opin. Quart. 57(1), 54–61 (1993)
Bassili, J.N., Krosnick, J.A.: Do strength-related attitude properties determine susceptibility to response effects? New evidence from response latency, attitude extremity, and aggregate indices. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 107–132 (2000)
Becerra, M., Gupta, A.K.: Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: the moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Org. Sci. 14(1), 32–44 (2003)
Ben-Ner, A., Halldorsson, F.: Trusting and trustworthiness: what are they, how to measure them, and what affects them. J. Econ. Psychol. 31(1), 64–79 (2010)
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K.: Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 10(1), 122–142 (1995)
Beugelsdijk, S.: A note on the theory and measurement of trust in explaining differences in economic growth. Camb. J. Econ. 30, 371–387 (2006)
Bicchieri, C.: Norms, preferences, and conditional behavior. Polit. Philos. Econ. 9, 297–313 (2010)
Burke, W.J.: Fitting and interpreting Cragg’s tobit alternative using Stata. Stata J. 9(4), 584–592 (2009)
Campbell, D.T., Fiske, D.W.: Convergent and discriminant validity by the mutitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56(2), 81–105 (1959)
Chaiken, S., Trope, Y. (eds.): Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. Guileford Press, New York (1999)
Charness, G., Haruvy, E., Sonsino, D.: Social distance and reciprocity: an Internet experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Org. 63(1), 88–103 (2007)
Coleman, J.L.: Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge (1990)
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A., LePine, J.A.: Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92(4), 909–927 (2007)
Cragg, J.G.: Some Statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(5), 829–844 (1971)
Delhey, J., Newton, K., Welzel, C.: How general is trust in “most peopleT? Solving the radius of trust problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76(5), 786–807 (2011)
Dillman, D.A., et al.: Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc. Sci. Res. 38(1), 1–18 (2009)
Dufwenberg, M., Gneezy, U.: Measuring beliefs in an experimental lost wallet game. Games Econ. Behav. 30(2), 163–182 (2000)
Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S.: The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth (1993)
Engell, A.D., Haxby, J.V., Todorov, A.: Implicit trustworthiness decisions: automatic coding of face properties in the human amygdala. J. Cognit. Neurosci. 19(9), 1508–1519 (2007)
Esser, H.: The definition of the situation. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48(1), 1–34 (1996)
Etang, A., Fielding, D., Knowles, S.: Are survey measures of trust correlated with experimental trust? Evidence from Cameroon. J. Dev. Stud. 48(12), 1813–1827 (2012)
Faust, M., et al.: Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: implications for group differences in response latency. Psychol. Bull. 125(6), 777–799 (1999)
Fazio, R.H.: A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Hendrick, C., Clark, M.S. (eds.) Review of Personality and Social Psychology—Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 74–97. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)
Fazio, R.H., et al.: On the automatic activation of attitudes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 50(2), 229–238 (1986)
Fazio, R.H.: Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In: Zanna, M.P. (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, pp. 75–109. Academic Press, San Diego (1990)
Fazio, R.H.: Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In: Petty, R.E., Krosnick, J.A. (eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 247–282. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)
Fehr, E., et al.: A nation-wide laboratory—examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. Schmollers Jahrbuch 122(4), 519–542 (2002)
Freitag, M., Traunmüller, R.: Spheres of trust: an empirical analysis of the foundations of particularised and generalised trust. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 48(6), 782–803 (2009)
Gabler, S., Häder, S.: Telefonstichproben. Methodische Innovationen und Anwendungen in Deutschland, Münster. Waxman Verlag, New York (2002)
Gambetta, D.: Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 213–237. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge (1988)
Glaeser, E., et al.: Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 115(3), 811–846 (2000)
Glanville, J.L., Paxton, P.: How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Soc. Psychol. Quart. 70(3), 230–242 (2007)
Graeff, P., Svendsen, G.T.: Trust and corruption: the influence of positive and negative social capital on the economic development in the European Union. Qual. Quant. 47(5), 2829–2846 (2013)
Grant, J.T., Mockabee, S.T., Monson, J.Q.: Campaign effects on the accessibility of party identification. Polit. Res. Quart. 63(4), 811–821 (2010)
Hardin, R.: Trust. Polity Press, Cambridge (2006)
Häder, S.H.: Telephone Surveys in Europe/Research and Practice, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin (2012)
Holtgraves, T.: Social desirability and self-reports: testing models of socially desirable responding. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30(2), 161–172 (2004)
Huckfeldt, R., Sprague, J.: Political consequences of inconsistency: the accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Polit. Psychol. 21(1), 57–79 (2000)
Kaminska, O., Foulsham, T.: Understanding sources of social desirability bias in different modes: evidence from eye-tracking. ISERWorking Paper Ser. 13, 1–11 (2013)
Karlan, D.S.: Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Am. Econ. Rev. 95(5), 1688–1699 (2005)
Koopmans, R., Veit, S.: Cooperation in ethnically diverse neighborhoods: a lost-letter experiment. Polit. Psychol. 35(3), 379–400 (2014)
Kramer, R.M.: Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50, 569–598 (1999)
Krumpal, I.: Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual. Quant. 47(4), 2025–2047 (2013)
Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)
Messick, D.M., Kramer, R.M.: Trust as a form of shallow morality. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 89–117. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)
Milgram, S., Mann, L., Harter, S.: The lost-letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opin. Quart. 29(3), 437–438 (1965)
Mulligan, K., et al.: Response latency methodology for survey research: measurement and modeling strategies. Polit. Anal. 11(3), 289–301 (2003)
Nannestad, P.: What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11(1), 413–436 (2008)
Neumann, R.: the validity of response latency measurement In CATI surveys. Prepared for XVIII. In: ISA World Congress 13–19 July 2014 Yokohama (2014)
Opp, K.-D.: Contending conceptions of the theory of rational action. J. Theo. Polit. 11(2), 171–202 (1999)
Orbell, J., Dawes, R.M.: A “cognitive miser” theory of cooperators’ advantage. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85(2), 515–528 (1991)
Posner, E.A.: Symbols, signals, and social norms in politics and law. J. Legal Stud. 27(2), 765–798 (1998)
Przepiorka, W., Diekmann, A.: Temporal embeddedness and signals of trustworthiness: experimental tests of a game theoretic model in the United Kingdom, Russia, and Switzerland. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 29(5), 1010–1023 (2013)
Rotter, J.B.: Interpersonal-trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. Am. Psychol. 35(1), 1–7 (1980)
Sapienza, P., Toldra-Simats, A., Zingales, L.: Understanding trust. Econ. J. 123(573), 1313–1332 (2013)
Schaeffer, N.C.: Asking questions about threatening topics: a selective overview. In: Stone, A.A., et al. (eds.) The Science of Self—Report: Implications for Research and Practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, London (2000)
Sønderskov, K.M.: Explaining large-N cooperation: generalized social trust and the social exchange heuristic. Ration. Soc. 23(1), 51–74 (2011)
Stocké, V.: Attitudes toward surveys, attitude accessibility and the effect on respondents ísusceptibility to nonresponse. Qual. Quant. 40(2), 259–288 (2006)
Strack, F., Deutsch, R.: Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 8(3), 220–247 (2004)
Sturgis, P., Smith, P.: Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: what kind of trust are we measuring? Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 22(1), 74–92 (2010)
Urban, D., Mayerl, J.: Response latency measurement in survey-based behaviour research. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 59(4), 692–713 (2007)
Uslaner, E.M.: Democracy and social capital. In: Warren, M.E. (ed.) Democracy and Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
Uslaner, E.M.: The Moral Foundations of Trust. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)
Uslaner, E.M.: The foundations of trust: macro and micro. Camb. J. Econ. 32(2), 289–294 (2008)
Uslaner, E.M.: Trust and corruption revisited: how and why trust and corruption shape each other. Qual. Quant. 47(6), 3603–3608 (2013)
Wang, W., Rothschild, D., Goel,S., Gelman, A.: Forecasting elections with non-representative polls. Int. J. Forecast. (2014). doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.06.001
Williamson, O.E.: Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econ. 34, 453–502 (1993)
Winston, J.S., et al.: Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 277–283 (2002)
Yamagishi, T.: Trust as a form of social intelligence. In: Cook, K.S. (ed.) Trust in Society, pp. 119–149. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (2001)
Yamagishi, T., Yamagishi, M.: Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motiv. Emot. 18, 129–166 (1994)
Yan, T., Tourangeau, R.: Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 22(1), 51–68 (2008)
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank participants of the RC45 and RC33 sessions of ISA World Congress 2014 in Yokohama, Japan, and the anonymous referees for helpful comments. The author is indebted to Lars Hiller for technical support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Neumann, R. Understanding trustworthiness: using response latencies from CATI surveys to learn about the “crucial” variable in trust research. Qual Quant 50, 43–64 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0136-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0136-2