Second component is a specific partner and what you know about that person. When you don't know much you might to not willing to take much of a risk. The more you know the more risk you're willing to take.
Finally there's a specific goal in the current situation. In these examples here the goal is maximizing money. But in cases of confidence building between nations, its security would be the common goal.
So those are the three components though, whatever the trust situation, A trusts B to do X.
So there’s work by psychologist Jeff Simpson
who has developed a dyadic model of trust. And this sort of gives you sort of the process model, or an outline of what occurs during a trust interaction. You have the two partners, okay? And my examples here were using individuals, but we can also build this out to nations, if you will. But each partner has dispositions. They have their own inclinations, their own tendencies, their own motives. So it influences the whole process. But the process starts with the two partners entering a trust situation. Okay, there's a transmission of motives, in that situation some joint decisions are made to trust gain, and decide to give the money to the experimenter who triples it and then there's a decision to get some money back. Okay, so that's the beginning of the transmittal of modals in joint decision making. As a function of those experiences, as a function of those decisions, attributions are made. Attributions are just perceptions of the causes of one's behavior. I attributed that persons behavior to something, you know, unseemly or I attributed that behavior of that person to trusting me. Attribution for the behavior. There's emotions, positive and negative- I'm a little upset that I didn't' get back that much or I'm weary of that person. That's an emotion, okay? Or I'm feeling good and I'm feeling positive which would lead to trust. And those are expectancies. Expectancies are critical. You think about motivation, we really motivate ourselves anticipatorally.
We think about what are the likely consequences of our behavior. What do we expect to occur.
If I expect positive rewards to file from the behavior, I will pursue that behavior. If I expect negative things to happen, I will not.
If I expect that the person will reciprocate my trust, I will go forward in this relationship. If I do not expect the person to reciprocate, I will not. So expectancies are critical. As a function of initial interactions, initial joint decisions we develop these attributions. Emotions and expectancies that then form our perception of trust, which influences the behavior going forward. In this case the perception of trust will experience the felt security of remaining in this interaction, okay? If my attributions, emotions, and expectancies are negative, I'm not going to feel very secure going forward in this interaction. If they are positive, then I'm going to have a strong sense of trust and I will feel secure in going forward.
An important part of all this is perceived intention.
Okay the attribution process, and the building of expectations, comes down to trying to read the other's motives. We're trying to read the other person's motivations.
That's something we do all the time.
We try to understand what other's are thinking or feeling, we try to read their motives. Problem is we think we're good at it, we do it all the time so we think we're good at it, we're probably not. We often misread people's motives or intentions. Okay, but what it comes down to, perceived intention what's going to drive the trust going forward.
That intent, the perceived intent is often tied to perceived opportunity cost and this is one of the ways that we determine whether or not we're going to to trust somebody. Did that other person stand something to lose and in their actions?
If the other person in our exchange is willing to give something up, is willing to absorb some opportunity cost, we're more likely to trust them.
So that's one of the key things in terms of and perceived intention. If the other person signals that they have something to lose, that there's opportunity cost there, greater chance of trust.
And also was the action voluntary? Were they doing it out of their own volition? Those are sort of two keys, okay? Those things exist relationship like we move forward in a trusting manner.
If it isn't, there's one more experiment I'm going to share with you, because it shows what we do when we observe people who seem to violate these social norms. If people violate principles of fairness and cooperation and reciprocity. What happens. This is a study done by Daniel Kahneman and colleagues. Kahneman a noted Cognitive Psychologist actually, won the Nobel Prize in Economics. They did sort of a similar experiment with a dictator game. And so what they did, they looked at two additional questions than we've looked at so far. First was, will proposers be fair, even if their offers cannot be rejected, okay? So this is again, so the dictator game.
But it also specified levels. At which they could make the offer. So, it wasn't, the proposer wasn't free to make any offer. Instead, they were given two options. So, they gave them $20, and said, you can split it 18 for yourself, and two for the other person. Or, 50/50, 10, and 10 of the 161 subjects in this experiment, 76% of them chose the equal split, 10/10. So again, overwhelming evidence that even when you're forced to give an equal amount, or a widely disparate amount, you give the equal amount. You're willing to, whether it's out of fairness or compassion for the person. Then the second question was will subjects sacrifice money, personal interest. Will they sacrifice money that they could gain, their own self interest, to punish a person who behaved unfairly? Or who violated social laws, I guess I should say it that way.
So, the answer here is also yes by almost the same amount 74%. 74% of their subjects went further and said, I wouldn't deny myself something benefit just to punish someone who didn't do the right thing. Who violated social norms. In this second experiment, here's how it went. The same subjects were told that they would be matched with two of the previous proposers. So they say, you know what, we're going to play this game. And in the previous session, here's how your partner behaved.
Okay, so the person who you're going to play this game with was a proposer in a previous game and here's what they did, okay. Either they took $18 for themselves in
a situation or they took $10 and split it equally. So they either did the 10/10 split or the 18/2 split. All right. So they'll be paired with someone who did uneven allocation or equal allocation. They were told, now, that with this partner, either the violator of social norms or the person who adhered to social norms, you can either give them $6 and you keep $6, or you can give them $5 and you get $5. Okay, so it's basically saying you can split money with the other person, $6 or $5. Now, you would think that's an easy game. Let's split $6. $6 and 1 5, let's take 6. That was true, they did that, if the partner Adhere to social norms. And it equally split the money in the previous experiment, or told that they had. All right? However, when the other person was a violator of social norms they said we're each getting $5.
They didn't want the person to get the additional gain. They said no, I'm going to punish that person. You couldn't punish them much, but just by accepting less money. $5 instead of $6. It made sure that that person also got less outcomes. So again, a little evidence that social norms are critical. In that, we try to adhere to them but when other people do not adhere to them we're going to take action to punish them. So how do we summarize? As a power of what I call social capital. Okay, and I think at the individual level, their social capital for trust.
That we have sets of motives and adhere to social norms that lead us into personally towards positive reciprocity. The key is to sort of build that up at the national level, and have confidence between the same level of paths of reciprocity between nations, much more difficult, okay. But to summarize the literature here, humans are remarkably able to limit self-interest even in interactions among strangers.
Okay, there's empathy at work. Empathy plus reciprocity and fairness norms. Okay, second, we are going to look at get a better understanding of why social norms are effective, okay. They are effective because repeated interactions, the more we interact with other people, the greater the long-term implications.
So if we build trust early even give up a little bit in terms of our self interest to build trust in the long run the positive reciprocity means greater gains for everybody.
There's also another reason why social norms are effective is that there's clearly sanctions for non-cooperative behavior.
Finally, another summary, what undermines trust? Okay, it's the attributions. Okay, going back to attributions and expectations for behavior. If you attribute a persons behavior to self-interest as opposed to mutual benefit, okay, that's going to lead to negative emotions and low expectations for reciprocity, okay? Those are the things that undermine trust at the individual level, and those are also going to be the things undermined at sort of the nation level. So that gives you an understanding of interpersonal trust. We'll go in the next modules in looking at confidence building between nations, hopefully this understanding at the end of personal level will help us understand better how to build confidence between nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment