Vulnerability or resilience? Examining trust asymmetry from the perspective of risk sources under descriptive versus experiential decision.

Jingyuan Zhu, Yingying Yao, Shan Jiang
Author Information
  1. Jingyuan Zhu: Counseling and Education Center, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
  2. Yingying Yao: Counseling and Education Center, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
  3. Shan Jiang: Counseling and Education Center, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.

Abstract

Introduction: The investigation of trust vulnerability is important to the understanding of the potential mechanisms of trust formation and erosion. However, more effective exploration of trust vulnerability has been hindered due to the lack of consideration of risk sources and types of information.
Methods: This study extended the investigation of asymmetry to both social and natural risk under experiential and descriptive decisions. Using the trust game as the decision-making paradigm and money as the subject matter, the research employed experimental methods to examine how people perceive and make decisions after being positively and negatively affected by natural and social risks. A total of 286 college students were participated in our study. Study 1 ( = 138) and Study 2 ( = 148) explored asymmetry in experiential and descriptive decision separately.
Results: The findings indicated that when considering experiential information, negative information had a greater effect in reducing trust compared to the enhancing effect of positive information ( = -1.95, = 0.050). Moreover, the study revealed that negative information had a stronger negative impact in the context of social risks rather than natural risks ( = -3.26, = 0.002), suggesting that trust is vulnerable both internally and externally. Conversely, when considering descriptive information, the effect of both positive and negative information on trust was symmetrical, and the impact of negative information was less significant compared to that of natural risks, indicating that trust has a certain level of resilience ( = 2.25, = 0.028).
Discussion: The study emphasizes the importance of refining risk sources and information characteristics in complex scenarios in order to improve understanding of trust enhancement and repair.

Keywords

References

  1. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Sep 25;7:593 [PMID: 24093013]
  2. Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Mar 15;55(6):594-602 [PMID: 15013828]
  3. Neuropsychologia. 2015 May;71:165-72 [PMID: 25846668]
  4. Psychol Bull. 1991 Jul;110(1):67-85 [PMID: 1891519]
  5. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2021 Mar;376(1819):20190665 [PMID: 33423626]
  6. Elife. 2020 Feb 18;9: [PMID: 32067635]
  7. Risk Anal. 2021 Mar;41(3):544-557 [PMID: 31379003]
  8. J Neurosci. 2013 Feb 20;33(8):3602-11 [PMID: 23426687]
  9. Brain. 2003 Aug;126(Pt 8):1830-7 [PMID: 12821528]
  10. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Mar;5(3):277-83 [PMID: 11850635]
  11. Psychol Sci. 2013 Nov 1;24(11):2306-14 [PMID: 24071565]
  12. Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Mar 19;281(1782):20132127 [PMID: 24648217]
  13. Cogn Psychol. 2010 Sep;61(2):87-105 [PMID: 20553763]
  14. Neuroimage. 2015 Feb 15;107:175-181 [PMID: 25485710]
  15. J Neurosci. 2000 Aug 15;20(16):6159-65 [PMID: 10934265]
  16. Front Psychol. 2019 Sep 20;10:2140 [PMID: 31620062]
  17. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Feb;10(2):240-7 [PMID: 24682131]
  18. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):717-31 [PMID: 15641418]
  19. Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;22(1):60-70 [PMID: 21164174]
  20. Nature. 2005 Jun 2;435(7042):673-6 [PMID: 15931222]
  21. Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):534-9 [PMID: 15270998]
  22. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Aug;149(8):1567-1586 [PMID: 31916837]
  23. Front Psychol. 2018 Oct 15;9:1965 [PMID: 30374322]
  24. Risk Anal. 2004 Dec;24(6):1475-86 [PMID: 15660605]
  25. Risk Anal. 2002 Apr;22(2):359-67 [PMID: 12022682]
  26. Top Cogn Sci. 2019 Apr;11(2):433-454 [PMID: 30576066]
  27. Psychol Sci. 2013 Oct;24(10):1918-27 [PMID: 23955356]
  28. Curr Biol. 2010 Oct 26;20(20):1823-9 [PMID: 20888231]
  29. Front Psychol. 2022 May 30;13:873289 [PMID: 35707640]
  30. Psychol Bull. 2018 Feb;144(2):140-176 [PMID: 29239630]
  31. J Appl Psychol. 2012 Mar;97(2):391-406 [PMID: 22181679]
  32. Science. 2008 Aug 8;321(5890):806-10 [PMID: 18687957]
  33. Science. 1981 Jan 30;211(4481):453-8 [PMID: 7455683]
  34. Risk Anal. 2001 Feb;21(1):199-206 [PMID: 11332549]
  35. Neuroimage. 2003 Aug;19(4):1439-48 [PMID: 12948701]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0trustinformation=risksrisknaturalexperientialdescriptivenegativesourcesstudyasymmetrysocialdecisionseffect0investigationvulnerabilityunderstandingStudy2decisionconsideringcomparedpositiveimpactIntroduction:importantpotentialmechanismsformationerosionHowevereffectiveexplorationhinderedduelackconsiderationtypesMethods:extendedUsinggamedecision-makingparadigmmoneysubjectmatterresearchemployedexperimentalmethodsexaminepeopleperceivemakepositivelynegativelyaffectedtotal286collegestudentsparticipated1138148exploredseparatelyResults:findingsindicatedgreaterreducingenhancing-195050Moreoverrevealedstrongercontextrather-326002suggestingvulnerableinternallyexternallyConverselysymmetricallesssignificantindicatingcertainlevelresilience25028Discussion:emphasizesimportancerefiningcharacteristicscomplexscenariosorderimproveenhancementrepairVulnerabilityresilience?Examiningperspectiveversus

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.