‘Generalized Expectancies of Interpersonal Trust’

American Psychologist (Impact Factor: 6.87). 04/1971; 26(5):443-452. DOI: 10.1037/h0031464


Describes results of a program of research on interpersonal trust, defined as belief in social communications. Construction of a scale for measuring individual differences, construct validity studies, and investigations of antecedents of trust, correlates of trust, and changes of college student trust are included. The evidence supports the hypothesis of (a) stable individual differences in a generalized expectancy for interpersonal trust, and (b) the feasibility of studying such trust under a variety of conditions. (29 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

326 Reads
  • Source
    • "Trust can be classified into particularized (thick or specific) trust and generalized (thin or diffuse) trust; the former refers to one's trust in specific people based on one's familiarity and similarity with those people, whereas the latter refers to trust in most strangers based on their morality, reputation, and characteristics (Freitag & Traunmüller, 2009; Glanville & Paxton, 2007; Kong, 2013a). Although particularized trust can facilitate cooperative behaviors 1 Trust has been examined as a major topic in economics (e.g., Berg, Dickhaut, & McCabe, 1995; Croson & Buchan, 1999; Johnson & Mislin, 2011), human biology (e.g., Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr, 2005; Riedl & Javor, 2012; Zak, Kurzban, & Matzner, 2005), organizational behavior (e.g., Dirks & Ferrin, 2001; McAllister, 1995), political science (Bjørnskov, 2006; Miller & Whitford, 2002), psychology (e.g., Acar-Burkay, Fennis, & Warlop, 2014; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Kramer, 1999; Rotter, 1971), and sociology (e.g., Delhey & Newton, 2005; Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Molm, Takahashi, & Peterson, 2000; Yamagishi, Cook, & Watabe, 1998). multiplicative function of climatic demands and wealth) on generalized trust. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Given the benefits of generalized trust, its determinants receive growing attention in international/cross-cultural management/psychology. This research proposed a gene-dependent climatoeconomic model, integrating multiple types of determinants parsimoniously. Across 53 societies, generalized trust is a multiplicative function not only of climatic demands and wealth (climatoeconomic contextualization), but also of climatic demands, wealth, and the 5-HTTLPR S-allele prevalence (gene-dependent climatoeconomic contextualization), mediated by uncertainty avoidance. The climatoeconomic contextualization is present only in societies possessing a low level of the 5-HTTLPR S-allele prevalence. These findings shed light on trust and international management research as well as interventions and policy making for societal effectiveness.
    Journal of World Business 10/2015; · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "118). " These general expectations are rooted in prior experiences (Paxton and Glanville, 2015; Rotter, 1971; Stack, 1978) and " … past encounters with other people (Hardin, 2002: 113), " which manifest as subjective beliefs and cognitive schemas. In line with this model, psychologists have long noted how beliefs and expectations, regardless of their generality or specificity, mutually reinforce each other (Allport, 1954; Bandura, 1977; Festinger, 1957), while contemporary research on social cognition shows that schemas are causally interrelated (Fiske and Taylor, 2013; Kunda, 1999; Moskowitz, 2005). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: When people form beliefs about the trustworthiness of others with respect to particular matters (i.e., when individuals trust), theory suggests that they rely on preexistent cognitive schemas regarding the general cooperativeness of individuals and organizations (i.e., social trust). In spite of prior work, the impact of social trust on relational trustdor what Russell Hardin (2002) calls trust as a three-part relation where actor A trusts actor B with reference to matter Ydis not well established. Four vignette experiments were administered to Mechanical Turk workers (N ¼ 1388 and N ¼ 1419) and to public university undergraduate students (N ¼ 995 and N ¼ 956) in order to investigate the relationship between social trust and relational trust. Measures of general social trust and particular social trust produced statistically equivalent effects that were positively associated with relational trust. Political trust, however, was statistically unrelated to relational trust. These results support the idea that people rely on schemas and stereotypes concerned with the general cooperativeness and helpfulness of others when forming beliefs about another person's trustworthiness with respect to a particular matter at hand.
    Social Science Research 09/2015; 55:16-30. DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.09.004 · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "enduring forms of influence (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Indeed, early trust research finds that propensity to trust—an important determinant residing within the trustor locus—is an individual predisposition with long-term implications for how trustors evaluate the motives and actions of others (Parks et al., 1996; Rotter, 1971). While our first hypothesis suggests a declining pattern of trustor influence over time, the decline may be small enough such that trustor influence will still exceed that of the trustee or dyad. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extant trust research champions 3 different centers of action that determine perceptions of trust: the trustor (the individual rendering trust judgments), the trustee (the party being trusted), and the trustor-trustee dyad. We refer to the centers of action as loci of trust. Thus far, researchers have investigated determinants residing within each locus independently but have not concurrently investigated all 3 loci. Thus, the relative influence of each locus on perceptions of trust is unknown. Nor is it known how the influence of each locus changes with time. Where is the dominant locus of trust? And how does it change over time? We address these questions by examining the influence of trustors, trustees, and dyads on perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity. We find that trustor influence decreases over time while trustee and dyadic influences increase. We also find that the trustor is the dominant locus for perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity initially, but over time the trustee becomes the dominant locus for perceived ability and integrity. For perceived benevolence, the trustor remains the dominant driver over time. (PsycINFO Database Record
    Journal of Applied Psychology 09/2015; DOI:10.1037/apl0000041 · 4.31 Impact Factor
Show more