IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0190142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions

Author

Listed:
  • Giorgia Ponsi
  • Maria Serena Panasiti
  • Salvatore Maria Aglioti
  • Marco Tullio Liuzza

Abstract

Trust towards unrelated individuals is often conditioned by information about previous social interactions that can be derived from either personal or vicarious experience (e.g., reputation). Intergroup stereotypes can be operationalized as expectations about other groups’ traits/attitudes/behaviors that heavily influence our behavioral predictions when interacting with them. In this study we investigated the role of perceived social dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM)–Warmth (W) and Competence (C)—in affecting trusting behavior towards different European national group members during the Trust Game. Given the well-known role of ideological attitudes in regulating stereotypes, we also measured individual differences in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In Experiment 1, we designed an online survey to study one-shot intergroup trust decisions by employing putative members of the European Union states which were also rated along SCM dimensions. We found that low-RWA participants’ trusting behavior was driven by perceived warmth (i.e., the dimension signaling the benevolence of social intentions) when interacting with low-C groups. In Experiment 2, we investigated the dynamics of trust in a multiple-round version of the European Trust Game. We found that in low-RWA participants trusting behavior decreased over time when interacting with high-W groups (i.e., expected to reciprocate trust), but did not change when interacting with low-W groups (i.e., expected not to reciprocate trust). Moreover, we found that high-RWA participants’ trusting behavior decreased when facing low-W groups but not high-W ones. This suggests that low-RWA individuals employ reputational priors but are also permeable to external evidence when learning about others’ trustworthiness. In contrast, high-RWA individuals kept relying on stereotypes despite contextual information. These results confirm the pivotal role played by reputational priors triggered by perceived warmth in shaping social interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Giorgia Ponsi & Maria Serena Panasiti & Salvatore Maria Aglioti & Marco Tullio Liuzza, 2017. "Right-wing authoritarianism and stereotype-driven expectations interact in shaping intergroup trust in one-shot vs multiple-round social interactions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190142
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190142
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190142&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0190142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Colin Camerer, 2003. "Behavioural studies of strategic thinking," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000490, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    4. Elsa Fouragnan & Gabriele Chierchia & Suzanne Greiner & Rémi Neveu & Paolo Avesani & Giorgio Coricelli, 2013. "Reputational Priors Magnify Striatal Responses to Violations of Trust," Post-Print halshs-00932753, HAL.
    5. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    6. Alessandra Mancini & Viviana Betti & Maria Serena Panasiti & Enea Francesco Pavone & Salvatore Maria Aglioti, 2011. "Suffering Makes You Egoist: Acute Pain Increases Acceptance Rates and Reduces Fairness during a Bilateral Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-8, October.
    7. Siddharth Suri & Duncan J Watts, 2011. "Cooperation and Contagion in Web-Based, Networked Public Goods Experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Jesse Graham & Brian A Nosek & Jonathan Haidt, 2012. "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Maria Serena Panasiti & Enea Francesco Pavone & Arcangelo Merla & Salvatore Maria Aglioti, 2011. "Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Intentional Deceiving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-6, April.
    10. Qingguo Ma & Liang Meng & Qiang Shen, 2015. "You Have My Word: Reciprocity Expectation Modulates Feedback-Related Negativity in the Trust Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-10, February.
    11. Sheryl Ball & Catherine Eckel & Philip J. Grossman & William Zame, 2001. "Status in Markets," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 161-188.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:6:p:479-491 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Pablo Hernandez & Dylan Minor, 2015. "Political Identity and Trust," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-012, Harvard Business School.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:99-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Manapat, Michael L. & Nowak, Martin A. & Rand, David G., 2013. "Information, irrationality, and the evolution of trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 57-75.
    4. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    5. Ola Andersson & Jim Ingebretsen Carlson & Erik Wengström, 2021. "Differences Attract: An Experimental Study of Focusing in Economic Choice," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(639), pages 2671-2692.
    6. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Iris Vilares & Gregory Dam & Konrad Kording, 2011. "Trust and Reciprocity: Are Effort and Money Equivalent?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, February.
    8. Milena Tsvetkova & Michael W Macy, 2014. "The Social Contagion of Generosity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-9, February.
    9. Matthew Staffelbach & Peter Sempolinski & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Douglas Thain & Daniel Wei & Ahsan Kareem & Gregory Madey, 2015. "Lessons Learned from Crowdsourcing Complex Engineering Tasks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, September.
    10. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    11. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    12. Yuan Yuan & Tracy Liu & Chenhao Tan & Qian Chen & Alex Pentland & Jie Tang, 2019. "Gift Contagion in Online Groups: Evidence From Virtual Red Packets," Papers 1906.09698, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    13. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Jillian J Jordan & David G Rand & Samuel Arbesman & James H Fowler & Nicholas A Christakis, 2013. "Contagion of Cooperation in Static and Fluid Social Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    15. Hyndman, Kyle & Walker, Matthew J., 2022. "Fairness and risk in ultimatum bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 90-105.
    16. Martin Daniel Siyaranamual, 2015. "Are Results of Social- and Self-Image Concerns in Voluntary Contributions Game Similar?," Working Papers in Economics and Development Studies (WoPEDS) 201501, Department of Economics, Padjadjaran University, revised Feb 2015.
    17. Jillian Jordan & Katherine McAuliffe & David Rand, 2016. "The effects of endowment size and strategy method on third party punishment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 741-763, December.
    18. Matthew J C Crump & John V McDonnell & Todd M Gureckis, 2013. "Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Armenak Antinyan, 2014. "Loss and Other-Regarding Preferences: Evidence From Dictator Game," Working Papers 03, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    20. Syngjoo Choi & Edoardo Gallo & Shachar Kariv, 2015. "Networks in the laboratory," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1551, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    21. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0190142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.