IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp14734.html

The Heritability of Trust and Trustworthiness Depends on the Measure of Trust

Author

Listed:
  • Kettlewell, Nathan

    (University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Tymula, Agnieszka

    (University of Sydney)

Abstract

Using a large sample of 1,120 twins, we estimated the heritability of trust using four distinct measures of trust – domain-specific political trust, general self-reported trust, and incentivized behavioral trust and trustworthiness. Our results highlight the importance of measuring trust in a context because its heritability differs substantially across the four measures, from 0% to 37%. Moreover, we provide the first evidence on the heritability of political trust which we estimate to be 37%. Furthermore, like the heritability, the environmental correlates of trust also vary across the different measures with political trust having the largest set of environmental covariates. The perceptions of COVID-19 health and income risks are among the unique correlates of political trust, with participants who are more worried about financial and health consequences of COVID-19, trusting politicians less, stressing the importance of trust in political leaders during a health crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka, 2021. "The Heritability of Trust and Trustworthiness Depends on the Measure of Trust," IZA Discussion Papers 14734, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp14734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp14734.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Michael L., 2008. "Multiple Inference and Gender Differences in the Effects of Early Intervention: A Reevaluation of the Abecedarian, Perry Preschool, and Early Training Projects," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1481-1495.
    2. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    3. Marcella Alsan & Marianne Wanamaker, 2018. "Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(1), pages 407-455.
    4. van der Loos, Matthijs J. H. M. & Benjamin, Daniel J. & Cesarini, David & Dawes, Christopher T. & Koellinger, Philipp D. & Magnusson, Patrik K. E. & Chabris, Christopher F. & Conley, Dalton & Laibson,, 2012. "The Genetic Architecture of Economic and Political Preferences," Scholarly Articles 10121961, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. S. Rabe-Hesketh & A. Skrondal & H. K. Gjessing, 2008. "Biometrical Modeling of Twin and Family Data Using Standard Mixed Model Software," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 280-288, March.
    6. Pop-Eleches, Cristian & Pop-Eleches, Grigore, 2012. "Targeted Government Spending and Political Preferences," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 7(3), pages 285-320, June.
    7. Yann Algan & Pierre Cahuc, 2013. "Trust and Growth," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 521-549, May.
    8. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    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. Kettlewell, Nathan & Tymula, Agnieszka, 2024. "Heritability across different domains of trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 549-563.
    2. Zhang, Zhe & Zhang, Xu & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Trust and cooperation at a confluence of worlds: An experiment in Xinjiang, China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 128-144.
    3. Finseraas, Henning & Hanson, Torbjørn & Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kotsadam, Andreas & Torsvik, Gaute, 2019. "Trust, ethnic diversity, and personal contact: A field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 72-84.
    4. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    5. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    6. Subhasish Dugar & Haimanti Bhattacharya, 2019. "Can Concerns for Social Status Mitigate the ‘Lemons Problem’? Experimental Evidence from the Indian Caste Hierarchy," Journal of South Asian Development, , vol. 14(2), pages 151-179, August.
    7. James C. Cox & Maroš Servátka & Radovan Vadovic, 2012. "Status Quo Effects in Fairness Games: Reciprocal Responses to Acts of Commission vs. Acts of Omission," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2012-03, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, revised Mar 2016.
    8. Gamba, Astrid & Regner, Tobias, 2019. "Preferences-dependent learning in the centipede game: The persistence of mistrust," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Amelie Aidenberger & Heiko Rauhut & Jörg Rössel, 2020. "Is participation in high-status culture a signal of trustworthiness?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, May.
    10. Joy Buchanan & Elif E. Demiral & Ümit Sağlam, 2025. "Effort transparency and fairness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 611-626, March.
    11. Giuseppe Danese & Luigi Mittone, 2015. "Trust and trustworthiness in experimental organizations," CEEL Working Papers 1501, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    12. Walkowitz, Gari & Weiss, Arne R., 2017. "“Read my lips! (but only if I was elected)!” Experimental evidence on the effects of electoral competition on promises, shirking and trust," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 348-367.
    13. Felfe, Christina & Kocher, Martin G. & Rainer, Helmut & Saurer, Judith & Siedler, Thomas, 2021. "More opportunity, more cooperation? The behavioral effects of birthright citizenship on immigrant youth," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    14. Cappelen, Alexander W. & Fjeldstad, Odd-Helge & Mmari, Donald & Sjursen, Ingrid Hoem & Tungodden, Bertil, 2021. "Understanding the resource curse: A large-scale experiment on corruption in Tanzania," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 129-157.
    15. Berlingieri, Francesco & Kovacic, Matija & Stepanova, Elena, 2025. "Trust behaviour of sexual minorities: Evidence from a large-scale trust game experiment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1582, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    16. repec:osf:socarx:mrh5q_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2023. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-Making," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    18. Zubair, Maria & Khanum, Ayesha & Nasir, Marjan, 2018. "Transfer Of Behavioral Traits From Parents To Children: An Experimental Approach," MPRA Paper 92121, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Alves, Guillermo & Blanchard, Pablo & Burdin, Gabriel & Chávez, Mariana & Dean, Andrés, 2022. "Like principal, like agent? Managerial preferences in employee-owned firms," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(6), pages 877-899, December.
    20. Aoyagi, Keitaro & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Shoji, Masahiro, 2022. "Irrigation infrastructure and trust: Evidence from natural and lab-in-the-field experiments in rural communities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    21. Michal Bauer & Nathan Fiala & Ian Levely, 2018. "Trusting Former Rebels: An Experimental Approach to Understanding Reintegration after Civil War," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(613), pages 1786-1819, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iza:izadps:dp14734. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.