IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v29y2017i4p408-448.html

Status, identity, and ability in the formation of trust

Author

Listed:
  • Blaine G. Robbins

Abstract

The sources of trust—or actor A’s belief about actor B’s trustworthiness with respect to particular matter Y—are myriad, ranging from the biological to the political. Despite the great amount of research that has investigated decision making as a function of another’s ascribed and achieved characteristics, we still know little about whether and to what extent these characteristics impact A’s trust in B regarding matter Y. In this article, I draw on classic sociological traditions—status characteristics theory and social identity theory—to formulate hypotheses that link ascribed and achieved characteristics to trust. Four survey experiments administered to Amazon.com Mechanical Turk workers ( N  = 1388 and N  = 1419) and to public university undergraduate students ( N  = 995 and N  = 956) showed that diffuse status characteristics (age, race, and gender) and social identities (co-age, co-race, and co-gender) produced weak to null effects depending on the population, hypothetical scenario, and nominal social category under study, while specific status characteristics (actual competence) consistently produced modest effects. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Blaine G. Robbins, 2017. "Status, identity, and ability in the formation of trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 408-448, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:29:y:2017:i:4:p:408-448
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463117734179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463117734179
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463117734179?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. John Horton & David Rand & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "The online laboratory: conducting experiments in a real labor market," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 399-425, September.
    2. Chaim Fershtman & Uri Gneezy, 2001. "Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 351-377.
    3. Oguzhan Dincer & Eric Uslaner, 2010. "Trust and growth," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 59-67, January.
    4. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    5. Paolacci, Gabriele & Chandler, Jesse & Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G., 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    6. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    7. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2008. "Alfred Marshall Lecture Social Capital as Good Culture," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(2-3), pages 295-320, 04-05.
    8. Guillermina Jasso, 2006. "Factorial Survey Methods for Studying Beliefs and Judgments," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(3), pages 334-423, February.
    9. Mundlak, Yair, 1978. "On the Pooling of Time Series and Cross Section Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 69-85, January.
    10. Buchan, Nancy R. & Croson, Rachel T.A. & Solnick, Sara, 2008. "Trust and gender: An examination of behavior and beliefs in the Investment Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 466-476, December.
    11. Nathan Nunn & Leonard Wantchekon, 2011. "The Slave Trade and the Origins of Mistrust in Africa," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3221-3252, December.
    12. Steven Goodreau & James Kitts & Martina Morris, 2009. "Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 46(1), pages 103-125, February.
    13. Blaine Robbins, 2012. "Institutional Quality and Generalized Trust: A Nonrecursive Causal Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 235-258, June.
    14. Sam Whitt & Rick K. Wilson, 2007. "The Dictator Game, Fairness and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 655-668, July.
    15. Henar Criado & Francisco Herreros & Luis Miller & Paloma Ubeda, 2015. "Ethnicity and Trust: A Multifactorial Experiment," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 131-152, April.
    16. Katrin Auspurg & Annette Jäckle, 2017. "First Equals Most Important? Order Effects in Vignette-Based Measurement," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 490-539, August.
    17. Gabriele Paolacci & Jesse Chandler & Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, 2010. "Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(5), pages 411-419, August.
    18. Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, 2009. "Different goods, different effects: exploring the effects of generalized social trust in large-N collective action," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 145-160, July.
    19. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    20. Krupnikov, Yanna & Levine, Adam Seth, 2014. "Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 59-80, April.
    21. Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan, 2010. "Discrimination in the lab: Does information trump appearance?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 50-59, January.
    22. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    23. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2007. "Social Capital as Good Culture," Economics Working Papers ECO2007/57, European University Institute.
    24. Anton Kühberger & Astrid Fritz & Thomas Scherndl, 2014. "Publication Bias in Psychology: A Diagnosis Based on the Correlation between Effect Size and Sample Size," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-8, September.
    25. 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.
    26. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Wladislaw Mill & Cornelius Schneider, 2023. "The Bright Side of Tax Evasion," CESifo Working Paper Series 10615, CESifo.
    3. Abel François & Sophie Panel & Laurent Weill, 2023. "Dictators’ facial characteristics and foreign direct investment," Post-Print hal-03969697, HAL.
    4. Hoeft, Leonard & Kurschilgen, Michael & Mill, Wladislaw, 2025. "Norms as obligations," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    6. Florian Teschner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "Crowd Labor Markets as Platform for Group Decision and Negotiation Research: A Comparison to Laboratory Experiments," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 197-214, April.
    7. repec:plo:pone00:0085508 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. Karl McShane, 2017. "Getting Used to Diversity? Immigration and Trust in Sweden," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 1895-1910.
    10. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    11. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    13. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    16. Garbarino, Ellen & Slonim, Robert & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Loss aversion and lying behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 379-393.
    17. Lefgren, Lars J. & Sims, David P. & Stoddard, Olga B., 2016. "Effort, luck, and voting for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 89-97.
    18. Bhatt, Vipul & Smith, Angela M., 2025. "Overconfidence and performance: Evidence from a simple real-effort task," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    19. Tim Straub & Henner Gimpel & Florian Teschner & Christof Weinhardt, 2015. "How (not) to Incent Crowd Workers," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(3), pages 167-179, June.
    20. 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.
    21. Hiroki Ozono & Daisuke Nakama, 2022. "Effects of experimental situation on group cooperation and individual performance: Comparing laboratory and online experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-17, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:29:y:2017:i:4:p:408-448. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.