Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Interpersonal trust: the role of risk in trust behaviour Charlesworth, Maxine Anne 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A1 C53.pdf [ 6.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095059.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095059-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095059-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095059-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095059-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095059-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095059-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095059-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095059.ris

Full Text

INTERPERSONAL TRUST: THE ROLE OF RISK IN TRUST BEHAVIOUR by MAXINE ANNE CHARLESWORTH B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1971 M . A . , Q u e e n ' s U n i v e r s i t y , K i n g s t o n , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR:' • OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department o f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J a n u a r y 198 0 @ Maxine Anne C h a r l e s w o r t h , 1980 In present ing t h i s t he s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree tha t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r re fe rence and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permiss ion f o r ex tens i ve copying of t h i s t he s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t he s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l ga in s h a l l not be a l lowed wi thout my w r i t t e n permi s s ion . Department nf 2si CLHOLb&y  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P lace Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 2cU/ft>{>  Abstract The f i r s t two e x p e r i m e n t s examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k and t r u s t b e h a v i o u r i n two f i e l d s i t u a t i o n s . The t h i r d e x p e r i m e n t was a r e p l i c a t i o n o f W r i g h t , M a g g i e d , and Palmer (197 5 ) . A c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t , w h i c h i n c l u d e d the f a c t o r s : d i s p o s i t i o n , r i s k assessment ( l e v e l o f r i s k and i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s ) , and b e h a v i o u r a l i n t e n t i o n was o u t l i n e d . The s u b j e c t group was composed o f 2 40 female u n d e r g r a d u a t e s e n l i s t e d on t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e main l i b r a r y a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a , C a n a d a . In t h e f i r s t two e x p e r i m e n t s , a between g r o u p s ' t r u s t b e h a v i o u r was compared o v e r c o n d i t i o n s o f low and h i g h m a n i p u l a t e d r i s k . In b o t h e x p e r i m e n t s , t r u s t b e h a v i o u r , w h i c h was found t o v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y o v e r r i s k c o n d i t i o n s , was compared w i t h r a t i n g s o f r i s k assessment and s c o r e s o b t a i n e d on R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e ( I T S ) . P r e l i m i n a r y i n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h a t t r u s t b e h a v i o u r i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o r i s k - t a k i n g as r e f l e c t e d by s u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e o f p r i z e f o r c o m p l e t i n g the e x p e r i m e n t . The t h i r d e x p e r i m e n t d i d n o t r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s o f W r i g h t , e t a l . (1975) and showed no r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number arid t y p e o f q u e s t i o n s asked by h i g h o r low s c o r e r s on t h e I T S . R e s u l t s from t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k and t r u s t and i n d i c a t e t h a t t r u s t b e h a v i o u r , i n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o r i s k assessment and l e v e l o f r i s k b u t n o t t o d i s p o s i t i o n , as measured by t h e I T S . A m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r was p r o p o s e d t o i n c l u d e the v a r i a b l e , r i s k a c c e p t a n c e . F u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f r i s k a c c e p t a n c e and t h e development o f a new s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c s c a l e o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t w h i c h i s c o n t e n t and g r a m m a t i c a l l y b i a s - f r e e a r e s u g g e s t e d . i v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . . . . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i v LIST OF TABLES v i LIST. OF FIGURES v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i x INTRODUCTION 1 Communication Re search 3 Self-Disclosure and the Therapeutic Milieu . . . 6 Social Perception, . . . . 8 Laboratory Games 10 Social ..Learning Theory ... 14 F i e l d and Behavioural Studies 16 Other Approaches to Trust 22 Background to the Proposed Experiments 28 A Conceptualization of Trust 32 A General Statement of the Hypotheses 36 METHOD 39 Experiments I and II 39 Subjects . . . 39 Procedure 40 Measures 47 Hypotheses and Analyses . 51 Experiment I I I 58 Subjects c 58 Procedure 58 Measures 59 Hypotheses and Analyses ' 61 A Study to Validate the Experimental Measures. 64 RESULTS 71 Evaluation of the Experimental Procedures in Experiments 13 II, and I I I 71 Subjects ' Reasons for t h e i r Behaviour 71 P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate 73 Return Rate of Questionnaires 74 V Page . Demand C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . ... 7 5 The R e l i a b i l i t y of the ITS 7 5 Experiment I 81 The Hypotheses 81 Other Findings 86 Experiment II 88 The Hypotheses .... ' 88 Other Findings 91 Experiment I I I • 93 The Hypotheses 93 Other Findings 94 General Results from the Three Experiments . . . . 95 DISCUSSION 1 0 3 The E f f i c a c y of the Experimental Design 104 Risk and.Trust . . . . . . 1 ° 9 The ITS: The Prediction of Trust Behaviour from a Dispositional Measure 119 F a i l u r e to Replicate the Study of Wright, Maggied, and Palmer 124 CONCLUSIONS i 3 0 REFERENCE NOTES i 3 6 REFERENCES '. i 3 7 APPENDICES A 1 4 4 B 1 4 7 c 152 D 155 E 15 7 BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION I 6 0 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1: The Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o f T r u s t R a t i n g s A s s i g n e d t o Ten B e h a v i o u r s by a Group o f Independent Judges a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 67 2 t - t e s t s Showing t h e D i f f e r e n c e s i n Means Between t h e . M i d - P o i n t And T h r e e E x p e r i m e n t a l T r u s t Measures (Based Upon t h e R a t i n g s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a l i d a t i n g Judges) 68 3 A F r e q u e n c y T a b l e Showing t h e D i f f e r e n c e s i n R a t i n g A s s i g n m e n t s f o r t h e T h r e e E x p e r i -m e n t a l T r u s t S i t u a t i o n s 69 4 A T e s t f o r the E f f e c t o f O r d e r on R i s k Assessment R a t i n g s i n E x p e r i m e n t I 76 5 A T e s t f o r t h e E f f e c t o f O r d e r on R i s k Assessment R a t i n g s i n E x p e r i m e n t I I 77 6 A Summary o f Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , , f o r the I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e Found i n t h e P r e s e n t I n v e s t i g a t i o n , a U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o m p a r i s o n G r o u p , t h e Study o f W r i g h t , M a g g i e d , and Palmer (197 5) and by R o t t e r 7 9 1 S i g n i f i c a n c e T e s t s Between Means ITS S c o r e s D e r i v e d From D i f f e r e n t S t u d i e s 80 8 P o i n t - B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s Showing t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p Between R i s k A s s e s s m e n t and T r u s t B e h a v i o u r i n the Low R i s k , and H i g h R i s k C o n d i t i o n s o f E x p e r i m e n t I 83 9 t - t e s t s o f t h e D i f f e r e n c e s i n R i s k A s s e s s -ments Made by B e h a v i o u r a l l y T r u s t i n g and D i s t r u s t i n g S u b j e c t s i n Low and H i g h R i s k C o n d i t i o n s F o r E x p e r i m e n t I 85 v i i Table Page 10 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g T r u s t B e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t I from ITS S c o r e s , R i s k Assessment and H a v i n g B e l o n g -i n g s P r e v i o u s l y S t o l e n 87 11 t - t e s t s o f the D i f f e r e n c e s i n R i s k A s s e s s m e n t s made by B e h a v i o u r a l l y T r u s t i n g and D i s t r u s t -i n g S u b j e c t s i n Low and H i g h R i s k C o n d i t i o n s . 90 12 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g T r u s t B e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t I I I from ITS S c o r e s , R i s k Assessments and S u b j e c t ' s Responses t o Two Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Items 92 13 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g T r u s t B e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t I From ITS S c o r e s , R i s k Assessment and the T r u s t I n d i c e s o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I 97 14 M u l t i p l e R e g r e s s i o n C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g T r u s t B e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t I I From ITS S c o r e s , R i s k Assessments and the T r u s t I n d i c e s o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I 98 15 P o i n t - B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Showing t h e R e l a t i o n s h i p Between t h e ITS S u b s c a l e s D e r i v e d by Chun and C a m p b e l l (1974) and t h e T r u s t B e h a v i o u r s i n the T h r e e E x p e r i m e n t s 100 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 A Conceptualization of Trust Behaviour 35 2 A Modified Conceptualization of Trust Behaviour 118 i x Acknowledgements I t i s w i t h p l e a s u r e t h a t I acknowledge t h e l o n g - s u s t a i n e d , t h o u g h t f u l and u n s t i n t i n g s u p p o r t o f my s u p e r v i s o r , D r . R . E . Knox, t h r o u g h o u t i n n u m e r a b l e v i s s i t u d e s , many o f them c a u s e d b y , and s o l v e d o v e r , l o n g - d i s t a n c e . I am g r a t e f u l a l s o t o t h e f o l l o w i n g : Amanda Rose f o r s p a r k i n g my i n i t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e t o p i c ; D a v i d G r e e r f o r e d i t o r i a l a s s i s t a n c e ; C h r i s t i n e Reimer f o r g r a p h i c s and p a r t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s ; and Pat K o n k i n a t t h e Department o f P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a d v i c e . T h e r e were v a r i o u s o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a who a s s i s t e d me, o f t e n by c u t t i n g r e d t a p e , i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e s e s t u d i e s a t the U n i v e r s i t y when I was n o t a r e g i s t e r e d s t u d e n t t h e r e . Derek Reimer i s t o be r o u n d l y commended i n h i s c a p a c i t y as a w e l l - s o u n d e d , s o u n d i n g b o a r d and a l l - r o u n d s u p p o r t i n t h i s l o n g - t e r m p r o j e c t . The u n f a i l i n g encouragement o f my p a r e n t s , E v e l y n and C a m i l o C h a r l e s w o r t h , i s a l s o g r a t e f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e d . D a v i d and J o s e p h , who a r e not my c a t s , d e s e r v e r e c o g n i t i o n f o r d o n a t i n g p a r t o f t h e i r m o t h e r i n g t i m e towards the c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and h e l p i n g me t o be e v e r - m i n d f u l o f t h e i s s u e o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . 1 S o c i e t y ' s o p e r a t i o n i s h i g h l y dependent on the t r u s t of i t s members. T r u s t and f e e l i n g s of suspicion"'" are present on every l e v e l from two person i n t e r a c t i o n s to the negot-i a t i o n s between n a t i o n s . For over twenty y e a r s , p s y c h o l o g i s t s have been examining t r u s t i n many s e t t i n g s and from many d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of view. Hence, a l a r g e body of r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s has accumulated. N e v e r t h e l e s s , there are major aspects o f t r u s t y e t t o be exp l a i n e d . One d i f f i c u l t y i n the r e s e a r c h has been the d e f i n i n g of the v a r i a b l e , t r u s t . P a r t o f the problem l i e s w i t h the v e r n a c u l a r usage of the term. Laymen have gi v e n the word so many meanings t h a t i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s to narrow t h e i r focus i n order t o make r e s e a r c h f e a s i b l e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , r e s t r i c t i o n s on the term leave some of the more i n t e r e s t i n g aspects o f t r u s t untouched. Broad d i s t i n c t i o n s should be made among t r u s t i n one's s e l f ( s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e ) , t r u s t i n superhuman or n a t u r a l events ( f a i t h ) , and t r u s t i n others ( i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t ) . I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t w i l l be the focus o f the presen t study. ^ D i s c u s s i o n of s u s p i c i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s l i m i t e d . G e n e r a l l y , i t i s d i s c u s s e d as being the op p o s i t e o f t r u s t and then i g n o r e d . In r e c e n t i n d i c e s of Psychological Abstracts, a category e x i s t s f o r t r u s t l i t e r a t u r e but not f o r s u s p i c i o n . The o n l y mention of s u s p i c i o n by i t s e l f i s t h a t o f s u s p i c i o n of i n t e n t , an experimental a r t i f a c t . I t may be t h a t s u s p i c i o n i s not the o p p o s i t e o f t r u s t , but i n t h i s paper i t w i l l be co n s i d e r e d as such and w i l l , be used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y w i t h " d i s t r u s t " . 2 There are many d e f i n i t i o n s o f t r u s t which are c l o s e l y t i e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h approach. For example, i n game r e s e a r c h , t r u s t i s g e n e r a l l y d e f i n e d i n terms of co o p e r a t i v e and co m p e t i t i v e responses (e.g., Kee, 1 9 6 7 ) ; i n s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , t r u s t i s d e f i n e d i n terms of normative r o l e performance and r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n (e.g., G a r f i n k e l , 1 9 6 3 ) ; and, i n communication r e s e a r c h , t r u s t i s d e f i n e d i n terms of the accuracy w i t h which a message i s r e l a y e d t o another person (e.g., Brehm and L i p s h e r , 1 9 5 9 ) . S e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s must be present i n a s i t u a t i o n b efore t r u s t i s a r e l e v a n t f a c t o r . The outcome of the s i t u a t i o n must be u n c e r t a i n and c o n t i n g e n t upon the behaviour of another person. That i s , the s i t u a t i o n must be one of dependence and v u l n e r a b i l i t y where the outcome i s a f f e c t e d by the behaviour of o t h e r ( s ) . There are l o s s -g ain c o n t i n g e n c i e s f o r each p a r t i c i p a n t i n the t r u s t s i t u a t i o n which are dependent upon mutual b e h a v i o u r a l c h o i c e s . The dependent i n d i v i d u a l , i f he behaves c o r r e c t l y ( t r u s t s when t r u s t i s a p p r o p r i a t e or d i s t r u s t s when d i s -t r u s t i s app r o p r i a t e ) accrues p o s i t i v e g a i n i n the form of e i t h e r m a t e r i a l or p s y c h o l o g i c a l b e n e f i t . I f the dependent i n d i v i d u a l behaves i n c o r r e c t l y ( t r u s t s when t r u s t i s not a p p r o p r i a t e or d i s t r u s t s when d i s t r u s t i s not a p p r o p r i a t e ) , he w i l l experience negative r e s u l t s . The i n d i v i d u a l ' s 3 d e c i s i o n to t r u s t or not to t r u s t depends upon s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d i n g assessment o f r i s k , d i s p o s i t i o n a l or p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , a h i s t o r y of previous t r u s t c h o i c e outcomes, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g to the i n t e r a c t i n g t r u s t agent. A s h o r t review of t r u s t l i t e r a t u r e and v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h approaches to t h i s t o p i c w i l l g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n of the present s t a t e o f the area. Communication Research Experiments d e a l i n g with communication, p e r s u a s i o n , and a t t i t u d e change were among the f i r s t s t u d i e s to i n v e s t i -gate t r u s t . E a r l y i n the 1950's, Hovland and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Hovland, J a n i s , and K e l l e y , 1953) made one of the f i r s t s y s t e m a t i c s t u d i e s of p e r s u a s i o n and a t t i t u d e change. An example o f an e a r l y i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t r u s t and communication i s a study by M e l l i n g e r (1956). He i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t of t r u s t and d i s t r u s t on the p r e d i c t i o n of the a t t i t u d e s of one person by another a f t e r t h e r e .had•been an exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n between them. I t was hypothesized t h a t i f a f e e l i n g of d i s t r u s t e x i s t e d between two people, A and B, there would be i n a c c u r a t e r e p o r t i n g of A*s a t t i t u d e s by B. B would o b t a i n an i n a c c u r a t e sounding of A's t r u s t a t t i t u d e s because A would engage i n e vasion or o t h e r 4 d i s t o r t i o n s of h i s tr u e o p i n i o n because of h i s u n d e r l y i n g d i s t r u s t o f B. T r u s t was measured by means of a w r i t t e n q u e s t i o n n a i r e which asked A to judge B on the b a s i s o f the s i n c e r i t y o f h i s motives and whether the person meant what he s a i d . R e s u l t s showed t h a t when B t r u s t e d A, there was b e t t e r p r e d i c t i o n o f A's a t t i t u d e s by B than when d i s t r u s t e x i s t e d . M e l l i n g e r found t h a t the s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e between A and B and the degree of t h e i r a t t i t u d i n a l agreement were a l s o important f a c t o r s i n the accurate p r e d i c t i o n o f another's a t t i t u d e to a p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e . M e l l i n g e r ' s study i s re p o r t e d here because i t i s one of the e a r l i e s t experimental attempts to i n v e s t i g a t e t r u s t and i t serves as an example of the r o l e o f t r u s t i n commun-i c a t i o n r e s e a r c h . Furthermore, M e l l i n g e r ' s measurement of t r u s t , which i s based upon s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s o f another person's s i n c e r i t y , motives, and d e p e n d a b i l i t y o f communication, i s a p r e c u r s o r of R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e (ITS) which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . Both M e l l i n g e r and R o t t e r c o n s i d e r the same f a c t o r s t o be dimensions of t r u s t measurement. One f u r t h e r study w i l l be mentioned i n t h i s area. Schlenker, Helm, and Tedeschi (1973) showed how source c r e d i b i l i t y i n the form of promises about which c h o i c e a person ( a c t u a l l y 5 a simulated p l a y e r ) was going to make d u r i n g a s e r i e s of P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Games a f f e c t e d s u b j e c t s ' method of p l a y i n g . Schlenker e t a l . found t h a t when the simulated p l a y e r made h i g h l y c r e d i b l e promises (kept 7 5% of the promises about which c h o i c e was to be made), t r u s t behaviour was induced i n a l l s u b j e c t s more o f t e n than when low c r e d i b i l i t y promises were made. Furthermore, they were a b l e to show t h a t s u b j e c t s who had obtained high scores on R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e r e l i e d more f r e q u e n t l y upon the promises of the simulated p l a y e r as compared to 2 s u b j e c t s who had o b t a i n e d low scores on the ITS. The two s t u d i e s c i t e d above i l l u s t r a t e how t r u s t has been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d i n communication r e s e a r c h . G i f f i n (1967) p o i n t s out t h a t r e s e a r c h of t r u s t i n t h i s area has been along s i x dimensions: expertness of the communicator, h i s r e l i a b i l i t y , i n t e n t i o n s , dynamism, pe r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n , and the m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n about the communicator ( i . e . , do others t r u s t the communicator?). There have been immediate, p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of r e s u l t s of communications r e s e a r c h i n the area of b u s i n e s s , p o l i t i c s , and personnel t r a i n i n g , from the s e l l i n g of soap M i l b e r g (1974) has s i n c e found t h a t i n p e r c e p t u a l judgements, i n t e n t i o n a l i t y i s a s t r o n g e r v a r i a b l e a f f e c t i n g t r u s t than competence. 6 t o t h e w i n n i n g o f v o t e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , c o m m u n i c a t i o n f i n d i n g s on t r u s t have l e d t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e same v a r i a b l e s i n o t h e r a r e a s o f p s y c h o l o g y . Communication r e s e a r c h has p r o v e d a f r u i t f u l g r o u n d f o r the g e r m i n a t i o n o f t r u s t r e s e a r c h a p p r o a c h e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t r u s t has n o t been measured i n the same way i n a l l s t u d i e s , and t h i s makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s t u d i e s and t o g e n e r a l i z e from one s t u d y t o a n o t h e r . Self-Disclosure and the Therapeutic Milieu An o f f s h o o t o f communication r e s e a r c h has been the s t u d y o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e by J o u r a r d (1968; 1971) and o t h e r s ( C l a r k e , 1971; C o z b y , 1973; D e r l e g a , H a r r i s , and C h a l k i n , 1973; D e r l e g a , Walmer and Furman, 1973; E l l i s o n and F i r e s t o n e , 1974; J o h n s o n and Noonan, 1972; J o u r a r d and F r i e d m a n , 1970; M a c D o n a l d , K e s s e l , and F u l l e r , 1972; R u b i n , 1973). The development o f t r u s t i n the c o u n s e l l i n g s e t t i n g [and even the measurement and d e l i v e r y o f c o u n s e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e s ( W e i n s t e i n , 1972)] i s a n e c e s s a r y component 3 o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y . The communication o f i n t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n i s an a s p e c t o f p s y c h o t h e r a p y w h i c h r e q u i r e s h i g h t r u s t on 3 T r u s t has even been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e " f a l l back l a t e n c y " o f s u b j e c t s engaging i n t h e G e s t a l t game o f f a l l i n g backwards i n t o the arms o f a s t r a n g e r ! ( Z o b l e , 1972) 7 t h e p a r t o f c l i e n t s . C l i n i c i a n s w i s h t o f a c i l i t a t e an atmosphere o f t r u s t t o make s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e p o s s i b l e . H e n c e , t h e v a r i a b l e s o f t r u s t , c o u n s e l l i n g s t y l e , and amount o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e have been o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s . A t y p i c a l example o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e / t r u s t r e s e a r c h may be i l l u s t r a t e d by an o u t l i n e o f t h e s t u d y by E l l i s o n and F i r e s t o n e (1974): T h e i r s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e d d i r e c t i v e and n o n - d i r e c t i v e c o u n s e l l i n g a p p r o a c h e s and the i n f l u e n c e o f each on t h e amount o f t r u s t b e h a v i o u r e l i c i t e d i n s u b j e c t s . T r u s t was measured by the w i l l i n g n e s s o f s u b j e c t s t o d i s c u s s i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h had p r e v i o u s l y been judged as 4 b e i n g o f h i g h o r low i n t i m a c y c o n t e n t . C o u n s e l l i n g s t y l e was v a r i e d and t h e dependent measure was the number o f i n t i m a c y i t e m s t h a t s u b j e c t s were w i l l i n g t o d i s c u s s w i t h the t h e r a p i s t . The r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s . D i f f e r e n t c o u n s e l l i n g s t y l e had no e f f e c t on the number o f h i g h i n t i m a c y i tems w h i c h s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o d i s c l o s e . The E l l i s o n and F i r e s t o n e s t u d y does i l l u s t r a t e , however, the method o f t e n used i n "*Jourard (1971) has d e v e l o p e d a s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e s c a l e . Items on t h e s c a l e v a r y from low i n t i m a c y t o p i c s such a s : my f a v o r i t e f o o d , t h i n g s . w h i c h make me f u r i o u s , and what I would a p p r e c i a t e most f o r a p r e s e n t , t o h i g h i n t i m a c y i tems such a s : t h i n g s i n t h e p a s t I f e e l ashamed and g u i l t y a b o u t , what a r e my s h o r t c o m i n g s and h a n d i c a p s , and my adequacy i n s e x u a l b e h a v i o u r . 8 s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e experiments. F a c t o r s thought to be r e l a t e d to t r u s t are v a r i e d and then measured i n terms of w i l l i n g n e s s to d i s c l o s e h i g h intimacy i n f o r m a t i o n . S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e experiments have very p r a c t i c a l and immediate a p p l i c a t i o n to psychotherapy, which makes these experiments of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t to c l i n i c i a n s . F u r t h e r -more, the method of measuring t r u s t i n terms of s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e i s a very d i f f e r e n t concept from other forms of t r u s t measurement—for example, c o o p e r a t i o n and c o m p e t i t i v e c h o i c e s i n game r e s e a r c h . .. Social Perception While t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n were f i r s t regarded as f a c t o r s of p e r i p h e r a l i n t e r e s t i n p e r s u a s i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , over the years they have become v a r i a b l e s of c e n t r a l importance. Heider's work (1958.) on s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n aided t h i s s h i f t i n a t t e n t i o n . T h i s work i s a landmark i n s o c i a l psychology because many of Heider's p r i n c i p l e s captured the i n t e r e s t of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s and l e d to much r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t y on i s s u e s suggested by h i s t h e o r i e s — f o r example, balance and a t t r i b u t i o n of c a u s a l i t y . His t h e o r i z i n g on the processes by which we observe, and g i v e meaning t o , the a c t i o n s o f others has i n f l u e n c e d i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t r e s e a r c h by f o c u s s i n g on the dyadic nature of the t r u s t 9 phenomenon. The e x p r e s s i o n of H e i d e r i a n concepts i s e v i d e n t i n the work of Kee (Note 1). Kee (Note 1) made an exhaustive study of the l i t e r a t u r e on t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n and analyzed the complexity o f a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n from the p o i n t of view of P and 0, the i n t e r a c t i n g p a r t i e s o f the t r u s t s i t u a t i o n . L a t e r , Kee and Knox (1970) o f f e r e d a d e f i n i t i o n o f t r u s t as w e l l as a schematic con-c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . While t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n has r o o t s i n H e i d e r i a n t h i n k i n g , i t can a l s o be a p p l i e d to t r u s t r e s e a r c h which employs mixed-motive games. A c c o r d i n g t o Kee and Knox, a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n e x i s t s , when two p a r t i e s . . . are to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t inter-dependent w i t h r e s p e c t to the outcomes d e f i n e d by t h e i r c h o i c e s , and one of the p a r t i e s (P) i s c o n f r o n t e d with the c h o i c e between t r u s t -i n g and not t r u s t i n g the other (0). I f P's c h o i c e i s to m a nifest t r u s t toward 0, then 0, i n t u r n , has the c h o ice of being e i t h e r t r u s t -worthy or untrustworthy. However, P's c h o i c e not to m a n i f e s t t r u s t toward 0 w i l l p r e c l u d e b e t r a y a l u s u a l l y l e a v i n g 0 with no f u r t h e r o p t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . I t i s important to note t h a t both P and 0 are c o g n i zant o f the r i s k to which P exposes him-s e l f i n h i s d e c i s i o n to t r u s t . (p. 358) In t h e i r schema of t r u s t , Kee and Knox show t h a t sub-j e c t i v e t r u s t or s u s p i c i o n precedes the b e h a v i o u r a l e x p r e s s i o n . To l e a r n about s u b j e c t i v e l e v e l s of t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n , p s y c h o l o g i s t s may a d m i n i s t e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and expect t h a t responses on a t r u s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e have b e h a v i o u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Researchers might a l s o i n f e r i n t e r n a l l e v e l s 10 of t r u s t from b e h a v i o u r a l measures. One might expect t o f i n d a higher r a t e of t r u s t i n g expressed by s u b j e c t s on t r u s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p a r t l y because of the s o c i a l d e s i r -a b i l i t y i n h e r e n t i n t h i s f a c t o r (Rotter, 1971) than would be found from b e h a v i o u r a l measures (where the purpose of the measurement i s g e n e r a l l y e a s i e r to d i s g u i s e ) . Laboratory Games The development of the mathematics o f game theory, e s p e c i a l l y mixed-motive, non-zero sum games, pro v i d e d p s y c h o l o g i s t s w i t h a new r e s e a r c h t o o l f o r t r u s t experiments. Deutsch (1958; 1960) was the f i r s t , and the most i n f l u e n t i a l , student of t r u s t t o work w i t h i n the game paradigm. In a conceptual paper, Deutsch (1958) argued t h a t t r u s t e n t a i l e d two components, p r e d i c t i o n and v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The f i r s t component, p r e d i c t i o n , meant t h a t a person must have the a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t the a c t i o n s o f another; t h a t i s , one has an e x p e c t a t i o n about how another person w i l l behave. The second component, v u l n e r a b i l i t y , r e f e r s to the f a c t t h a t i n a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n , a person i s p l a c e d i n a p o s i t i o n of dependence where the outcome i s ..uncertain and con t i n g e n t upon the behaviour of (an)other p e r s o n ( s ) . Deutsch's paper o f f e r s e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r some other terms d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t r u s t . He d e s c r i b e s " s u s p i c i o n " 11 as t h e d i r e c t o p p o s i t e o f t r u s t , " g u l l i b i l i t y " as p a t h o -l o g i c a l , e x c e s s i v e o r i n d i s c r i m i n a t e t r u s t , and " t r u s t -w o r t h i n e s s " as t h e awareness t h a t you a r e t h e r e c i p i e n t o f t r u s t w h i c h s t i m u l a t e s t h e need t o honour (as opposed t o b e t r a y ) t h e t r u s t . D e u t s c h i n f l u e n c e d l a t e r r e s e a r c h by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t r u s t w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e b o t h c o m m u n i c a t i o n and c o o p e r a t i o n between p e o p l e . H i s paper d i r e c t e d t h e a t t e n t i o n o f o t h e r s t o n o n - z e r o sum games as a means by which t r u s t c o u l d be s t u d i e d . One game i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma Game 6 (PDG) , was t h o r o u g h l y s t u d i e d and became the major r e s e a r c h v e h i c l e f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g t r u s t . T r u s t and s u s p i c i o n soon became d e f i n e d i n terms o f p a r t i c u l a r game b e h a v i o u r s . F o r example, Solomon (1960), i n a s t u d y d i r e c t e d by D e u t s c h , s t a t e d t h a t t r u s t b e h a v i o u r a r i s e s when a s u b j e c t c h o o s e s " ' R e c e n t l y , R o t t e r (Note 7) has d i s p u t e d D e u t s c h ' s c l a i m t h a t g u l l i b i l i t y i s e x c e s s i v e t r u s t . R o t t e r r e v i e w s s e v e r a l s t u d i e s on g u l l i b i l i t y which d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y show t h a t h i g h t r u s t e r s a r e no more l i k e l y t o be d e c e i v e d t h a n low t r u s t e r s . R o t t e r s a y s : " I t may be t r u e t h a t t h e h i g h t r u s t e r i s f o o l e d more o f t e n by c r o o k s , b u t t h e low t r u s t e r i s p r o b a b l y f o o l e d e q u a l l y o f t e n by d i s t r u s t i n g h o n e s t p e o p l e and t h e r e b y f o r f e i t s t h e b e n e f i t s t h a t t r u s t i n g o t h e r s might b r i n g . " (p. 9) 6 PDG i s d e s c r i b e d i n R a p p a p o r t and Chammah (.1965, p . 24) . O t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( B e n t o n , G e l b e r , K e l l e y , and L i e b l i n g , 1969; G a l l o , 1966; M i l l e r and H a m b l i n , 1963; P i l i s u k and S k o l n i k , 1968) have d e v e l o p e d o t h e r complex m i x e d - m o t i v e games. 12 t o be c o o p e r a t i v e and e x p e c t s h i s p a r t n e r o r opponent t o r e c i p r o c a t e . O t h e r s have used s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n s o f t r u s t i n terms o f p a r t i c u l a r game b e h a v i o u r s ( e . g . , D e u t s c h , 1960; G a l l o and M c C l i n t o c k , 197 3; L a v e , 196 5; L i n d s k o l d and B e n n e t t , 1973; L i n d s k o l d and H o r a i , 1974; P i l i s u k and S k o l n i k , 1968; Rekosh and Feigenbaum, 1966; S c h l e n k e r , H e l m , and T e d e s c h i , 1973; Ward, 1972). I n v e s t i g a t o r s soon began t o m a n i p u l a t e v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s w i t h i n w h i c h t h e PDG was c o n d u c t e d . These m a n i p u l a t i o n s i n c l u d e d p a y o f f m a t r i c e s , p l a y e r s ' sex and r a c e , s t r a t e g i e s , amount o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , and p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the o t h e r p l a y e r s . The games were sometimes, but n o t a l w a y s , i n t e r p r e t a b l e i n terms o f t r u s t . The f i n d i n g s a r e too s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c t o y i e l d b r o a d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t t r u s t . In t i m e , fewer s t u d i e s i n v o l v i n g PDG a s s o c i a t e d t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n s and f i n d i n g s w i t h t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n . I n s t e a d , t h e focus o f t h e s e s t u d i e s was gaming b e h a v i o u r and c o o p e r a t i o n and c o m p e t i t i o n . R e s e a r c h e r s began t o r e a l i z e t h a t s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s i n n o n - z e r o sum games were c o m p l e x l y d e t e r m i n e d and t h a t a s i n g l e r e s p o n s e c o u l d n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o a s i n g l e m o t i v e . H e n c e , t h e meaning o f s u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e s i n m i x e d - m o t i v e games, i n c l u d i n g PDG, were n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be e x c l u s i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d by t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n . 13 The appeal of PDG and other mixed-motive game r e s e a r c h i s e v i d e n t . The method i s e l e g a n t , i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 7 simple, and the data produced q u a n t i f i a b l e . The o r i g i n a l P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma s t o r y very c o n v i n c i n g l y demands a p a i n f u l d e c i s i o n about i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . However, the PDG i s a complex s i t u a t i o n , and when s u b j e c t s are c o n f r o n t e d by a matrix o f numbers the s u b t l e dilemma element i s f r e q u e n t l y l o s t . Kee, Knox, and Coughlan (Note 2) and Kanouse and Weist (1967) have shown t h a t many s u b j e c t s do, i n f a c t , f a i l t o rec o g n i z e the dilemma. Knox and Douglas (.1971) q u e s t i o n whether the stakes r e p r e s e n t e d i n the m a t r i x t a b l e are meaningful enough t o render t r u s t r e l e v a n t to s u b j e c t s ' d e c i s i o n s . One might a l s o q u e s t i o n how such a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n can be s a i d to r e l a t e to t r u s t i n other areas. The t r a n s l a t i o n o f the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma i n t o a game t r i v i a l i z e s the t r u s t element i n t o a game of s t r a t e g y and luck w i t h n e g l i g i b l e s t a k e s . There has been a r e c e n t resurgence of PDG t r u s t s t u d i e s , perhaps because experimenters f i n d the s i t u a t i o n so compel l i n g . But, as Wrightsman (1974) p o i n t s out, the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t r u s t through PDG has added l i t t l e t o the understanding o f g e n e r a l i z e d t r u s t behaviour. 7 Great i s the temptation to overlook the c r i t i c i s m s t h a t the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma and other mixed-motive games encourage p l a y e r s to respond i n terms of odds-p l a y i n g r a t h e r than t r u s t so t h a t the paradigm may be r e v i v e d f o r one l a s t d i s s e r t a t i o n study! 14 Social Learning Theory In " r e a l l i f e " we o b s e r v e t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s i n a f r i e n d o r a c q u a i n t a n c e over some p e r i o d o f t i m e and t r e a t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , as i t u n f o l d s , l i k e d a t a from an i n f o r m a l l o n g i t u d i n a l s t u d y . Such o b s e r v a t i o n s l e a d t o c o n j e c t u r e s about how t r u s t i n g and t r u s t w o r t h y o t h e r s a r e . In the l a b o r a t o r y , m u l t i p l e t r u s t measures a r e d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t r i v e , e s p e c i a l l y when the e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s t e n d t o a r o u s e s u b j e c t s ' s u s p i c i o n s and encourage g u e s s i n g o f the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s p u r p o s e and m o t i v e s . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , however, have t h e advantage o f p r o v i d i n g an e s t i m a t e o f a p e r s o n ' s t r u s t l e v e l w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o a c t u a l m a n i -p u l a t i o n o f s i t u a t i o n . R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e (ITS) has been t h e most f r e q u e n t l y used p a p e r and p e n c i l measure o f t r u s t and i t has shown v a r i e d s u c c e s s at. c o r r e l a t i n g g e n e r a l i z e d and s p e c i f i c t r u s t e x p e c t a n c i e s . The s c a l e i s based upon a d e f i n i t i o n o f t r u s t as " t h e e x p e c t a n c y t h a t t h e w o r d , p r o m i s e , v e r b a l o r w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l o r group can be r e l i e d upon" ( R o t t e r , 1967, p . 651). I t was v a l i d a t e d by s o c i o m e t r i c measures o f t r u s t by a group o f i n d i v i d u a l s who had l i v e d t o g e t h e r f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e and were p r e s u m a b l y a b l e t o o b s e r v e m u l t i p l e t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s o f o t h e r s . 15 R o t t e r d e s c r i b e s t r u s t as having two a s p e c t s . F i r s t , t h e r e i s the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t as a g e n e r a l i z e d expectancy, which i s s i m i l a r to the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c a l concept, " b a s i c t r u s t , " employed by E r i k s o n (1968). G e n e r a l i z e d expectancy determines behaviours because "as a r e s u l t of repeated experience i n the same or s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s , the i n d i v i d u a l b u i l d s up reinforcement which extends across s i t u a t i o n s " (Hamsher, G e l l e r , and R o t t e r , 1968, p. 211). Second, there are s p e c i f i c expectancies e l i c i t e d by each t r u s t s i t u a t i o n c o n f r o n t i n g a person because of the s p e c i a l circumstances i n h e r e n t i n the s i t u a t i o n . Both these expectancies determine the t r u s t response. There have been s e v e r a l f a c t o r a n a l y t i c attempts to analyze and to r e f i n e the ITS. These analyses have shown t h a t . t h e ITS, l i k e most p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e s , i s not a u r i i -d i mensional measure. For example, Chun and Campbell (1974) found f o u r c l u s t e r s comprising the ITS. These were: i ) s k e p t i c i s m about p o l i t i c s ; i i ) i n t e r p e r s o n a l e x p l o i t -a t i o n ; i i i ) s o c i e t a l h y p o c r i s y ; and, i v ) r e l i a b l e r o l e per-formance. P r e v i o u s l y , Kaplan (1973), u s i n g a d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r a n a l y t i c technique, found t h a t there were three f a c t o r s which he labelled.: i ) i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r u s t ; i i ) s i n c e r i t y ; and i i i ) c a u t i o n . 16 S t u d i e s s u c h as t h o s e o f K a p l a n (1973) and Chun and C a m p b e l l (1974) a r e u s e f u l i n r e f i n i n g a s c a l e and e l u c i d a t i n g t h e e l e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n a m e a s u r e . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s m i g h t do as Chun and C a m p b e l l s u g g e s t and compare any t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h f a c t o r c l u s t e r s i n an a t t e m p t t o i n c r e a s e c o r r e l a t i o n between t h e p a p e r and p e n c i l measure and a c t u a l b e h a v i o u r . F i e l d and Behavioural Studies Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s such as the ITS d i s c u s s e d i n t h e s e c t i o n above a l l o w a w i d e r e x a m i n a t i o n o f t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s and b e h a v i o u r than o n e - s h o t f i e l d s t u d i e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e v a l i d i t y o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s i s f r e q u e n t l y q u e s t i o n e d on t h e b a s i s o f whether what a p e r s o n s a y s he would do i s , i n f a c t , what he w i l l do. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s may n o t be i n d i c a t i v e o f b e h a v i o u r a t a l l . The c l a s s i c s t u d y by L a P i e r e (1934) i n v o l v i n g h i s s u c c e s s f u l e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h a C h i n e s e c o u p l e s e e k i n g l o d g i n g and meals and the subsequent n e g a t i v e r e p o r t s by m o t e l o p e r a t o r s and r e s t a u r a n t managers o f t h e i r w i l l i n g -ness t o accommodate C h i n e s e p a t r o n s i s b u t one o f many i l l u s t r a t i o n s t h a t t h e r e i s o f t e n l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - r e p o r t s o f b e h a v i o u r and a c t u a l b e h a v i o u r . 17 A behavioural measure provides a t a n g i b l e expression of t r u s t w i t h the expectation that one example of behaviour g e n e r a l i z e s to t r u s t i n other s i t u a t i o n s . The study of r e a l l i f e behaviour does not e n t a i l the "leap i n f a i t h " demanded by q u e s t i o n n a i r e treatments of a p s y c h o l o g i c a l g phenomenon. Questionnaires are based on the premise th a t responses to them a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t behaviour and a t t i t u d e s . There i s a small body of t r u s t research which has been conducted by means of f i e l d s t u d i e s and n a t u r a l i s t i c experiments. The compelling a t t r a c t i o n of these experiments i s t h a t they d e a l w i t h matters c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i a b l e as everyday l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . These f i e l d experiments on t r u s t have been designed i n imaginative ways which are i n t e r e s t i n g to p s y c h o l o g i s t s and laymen a l i k e . One of the problems of n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s on t r u s t has been the l i m i t e d number of measures from each subject which can be obtained by the experimenter without a l e r t i n g the subject to the f a c t that he or she i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an experiment. With m u l t i p l e behavioural measures from In f a i r n e s s , i t must be admitted t h a t there are d i f f e r e n t s o r t s of "leaps i n f a i t h " a s s o c i a t e d w i t h behav-i o u r a l s t u d i e s . Namely with n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s , there i s the issue of g e n e r a l i z i n g one example of behaviour to a range of behaviours or a g l o b a l t r a i t . 18 s u b j e c t s , more conf i d e n c e c o u l d be p l a c e d i n the r e s u l t of n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to an under-l y i n g d i s p o s i t i o n . Four examples of f i e l d s t u d i e s o f t r u s t w i l l be mentioned here. F i r s t , Te V a u l t , Forbes, and Gromoll (1971) conducted a f i e l d study t o compare the t r u s t of c o n s e r v a t i v e and l i b e r a l church members. Co n s e r v a t i v e and l i b e r a l church membership was d e f i n e d i n terms of Gloek and St a r k ' s Index of Orthodoxy (Clock and Stark, 1966). To o b t a i n t h e i r measures, Te V a u l t e t a l . counted the number o f unlocked c a r s i n church p a r k i n g l o t s d u r i n g s e r v i c e s . F a c t o r s such as l o c a t i o n of church and v i n t a g e of c a r were c o n t r o l l e d by matching. R e s u l t s showed t h a t members o f " c o n s e r v a t i v e churches locked c a r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n arid hence were judged'to be l e s s t r u s t i n g than l i b e r a l church members. Second, Rubin (1973) and h i s students conducted a f i e l d experiment i n a Boston a i r p o r t . They i n v e s t i g a t e d mutual s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e between s t r a n g e r s by means of an ingenious experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n . Student experimenters approached s t r a n g e r s and asked them to take p a r t i n a handwriting experiment. Students then wrote out a message, o s t e n s i b l y to p r o v i d e a sample of t h e i r own w r i t i n g f o r comparison purposes before asking s u b j e c t s to r e c i p r o c a t e i n p r o v i d i n g 19 a handwriting sample. The i n t i m a c y of students' messages was randomly v a r i e d . R e s u l t s showed t h a t i n low and medium intim a c y con-d i t i o n s , s u b j e c t s r e c i p r o c a t e d the i n t i m a c y of messages. In the h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n , s u b j e c t s ' messages d i d not correspond. Rubin hypothesized t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the h i g h i n t i m a c y c o n d i t i o n were s u s p i c i o u s of the student. (The low intimacy messages r e f e r r e d to the weather and g e n e r a l remarks about the experiment while h i g h i n t i m a c y messages r e v e a l e d thoughts about the students' sexual adequacy.) Because intimacy and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e are behaviours a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r u s t , Rubin's experiments can j u s t i f i a b l y be c o n s i d e r e d to be an experiment of t r u s t . There was present the element of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y which comes wit h unburdening o n e s e l f to another. Not only was t h e r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y i n v o l v e d but there a l s o e x i s t e d the o u t s i d e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the s u b j e c t might l a t e r meet; the student i n a d i f f e r e n t c ontext and r e v e a l to others the s u b j e c t ' s i n t i m a t e d i s c l o s u r e . T h i r d , a p i l o t study conducted by Rose (Note 3) i n v o l v e d approaching s t r a n g e r s and simply r e q u e s t i n g to borrow a watch without any f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n . T h i s method y i e l d e d a s u r p r i s i n g l y high r a t e of compliance 20 ( i . e . , t r u s t ) i n c o l l e g e - s t u d e n t s . y F i n a l l y , L evine, V i l e n a , Altman, and Nadien (197 6) i n v e s t i g a t e d t r u s t i n a s t r a n g e r i n an urban vs r u r a l e n v i r o n -ment. T r u s t was measured i n response t o the experimenter's request to use a telephone. High t r u s t s u b j e c t s were those who allowed the experimenter t o ent e r t h e i r apartment o r house i n order t o use the telephone. T h e i r r e s u l t s showed t h a t i n the c i t y the door was kept c l o s e d a g a i n s t the experimenters i n 75% of the cases. In the sma l l town the door was always opened t o the experimenters and 100% of the female experimenters were admitted (compared to 40% of the male experimenters). In the c i t y , o n l y 40% of the homes admitted the female experimenters and only 12% of the male experimenters were admitted. Hence, males were l e s s t r u s t e d than females (p < .001) and town r e s i d e n t s were more t r u s t i n g than c i t y r e s i d e n t s (p < . 0 0 1 ) . JA d i s t i n c t i o n might be drawn a t t h i s p o i n t between a l t r u i s m and t r u s t . In s i t u a t i o n s where a l t r u i s m i s the most s a l i e n t m o t i v a t o r , e.g., g i v i n g d i r e c t i o n s to a st r a n g e r who i s l o s t , the r i s k t o the i n d i v i d u a l i s minimal or n e g l i g i b l e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l o r p h y s i c a l v u l n e r a b i l i t y i s not pres e n t . In t r u s t s i t u a t i o ns:, the t r u s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l i s i n a dependent p o s i t i o n where a neg a t i v e outcome i s a r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y . L e v i ne e t a l . (1976) noted t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n the behaviour of c i t y d w e l l e r s responding to the request to use the telephone. They found t h a t they were gi v e n a telephone book by s u b j e c t s (helped) but not gi v e n admittance ( t r u s t e d ) . 21 These few f i e l d s t u d i e s demonstrate some of the i n v e n t i v e ways i n which t r u s t can be researched. To date, n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d i e s and f i e l d experiments have been i n t e r e s t i n g s i d e l i g h t s to other t r u s t r e s e a r c h conducted w i t h i n the c o n f i n e s of the l a b o r a t o r y . The p a u c i t y of f i e l d e x perimentation i n the study of t r u s t can p a r t l y be a t t r i b u t e d t o the g e n e r a l p r e f e r e n c e o f experimenters to remain i n the l a b o r a t o r y t o maximize experimental c o n t r o l . There are a l s o e t h i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which have operated a g a i n s t experimentation i n t h e ' f i e l d . The e t h i c a l c r i t i c i s m s l e v e l l e d a g a i n s t f i e l d s t u d i e s of t r u s t are the same as' the c r i t i c i s m s of f i e l d s t u d i e s i n g e n e r a l . Very o f t e n the design of such s t u d i e s makes i t i m p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n p r e v i o u s consent from s u b j e c t s whose behaviour i s being measured. In t r u s t s t u d i e s , the e t h i c a l q u e s t i o n s have heightened s i g n i f i c a n c e s i n c e s u b j e c t s must be put (or observed) i n a v u l n e r a b l e p o s i t i o n i n o r d e r to c r e a t e a meaningful t r u s t s i t u a t i o n . The c o n t r i v e d s i t u a t i o n of dependency may cause s u b j e c t s d i s t r e s s which they would not have w i l l i n g l y agreed to experience i f they had been a p p r i s e d of the experimental methods and purposes beforehand. The v e t t i n g r o l e of human s u b j e c t s ' e t h i c s committees i s p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n guarding the r i g h t s of s u b j e c t s and keeping experimental 22 methods w i t h i n g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e bounds. Other.Approaches to Trust The f o r e g o i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of t r u s t r e s e a r c h does not exhaust a l l the d i s c u s s i o n which has taken p l a c e on t h i s t o p i c . S e v e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l examinations have o f f e r e d r e l e v a n t and d i f f e r e n t i n s i g h t s on t r u s t . For example, G a r f i n k e l (1963) takes the s o c i o l o g i c a l view t h a t t r u s t behaviour i s congruent w i t h f u l f i l l i n g normative r o l e requirements. When s u b j e c t s behave i n a normative and r o l e -conforming manner they induce t r u s t . T h i s p o i n t of view on t r u s t i s supported by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of R o t t e r ' s t r u s t s c a l e . Kaplan (1973) showed t h a t one f a c t o r of the m u l t i -v a r i a t e s c a l e c o u l d be l a b e l l e d , " r o l e performance". H e n s l i n (1972) has g i v e n o b s e r v a t i o n a l support of the p e r t i n e n c e of r o l e c o n f ormity to t r u s t assessments i n h i s s o c i o l o g i c a l """"Even a f t e r a human s u b j e c t s ' committee approves a r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , the p s y c h o l o g i s t must answer to the quest-i o n i n g o f e t h i c s by c o l l e a g u e s . A case i n p o i n t i s the washroom study of Middlemist, Knowles, and Matter (1976) which bears p e r i p h e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p to one of the experiments undertaken i n t h i s study i n t h a t the locus of measurement was s i m i l a r , i . e . , a u n i v e r s i t y washroom. Although the study of M i d d l e m i s t e t a l . was not one i n v o l v i n g t r u s t , i t i s c e r t a i n l y the case t h a t s u b j e c t s were observed i n a v u l n e r -a b l e p o s i t i o n i n order to i n v e s t i g a t e behaviour of debated meaningfulness ( c f . Koocher, 1977). I t i s not expected t h a t the experimental procedures employed i n the c u r r e n t study w i l l arouse s i m i l a r outrage and uproar. 23 study o f t a x i - c a b d r i v e r s and t h e i r customers. H e n s l i n found t h a t among ca b b i e s , there are p a r t i c u l a r behaviours of t h e i r " f a r e s " , e.g., where they s i t i n the cab, what they are wearing, where they are p i c k e d up, e t c . which are noted and then enable the d r i v e r to assess the customer. From h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s , a cab d r i v e r assesses how l a r g e h i s t i p i s l i k e l y t o be, whether a person w i l l be ab l e to pay h i s fare, and what the chances are t h a t he w i l l be robbed by the passenger. F i n a l l y , i n the l i t e r a t u r e , r i s k has o f t e n been mentioned as a~ v a r i a b l e c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r u s t . The r e l a t i o n -s h i p between r i s k and t r u s t has not, however, been s p e c i f i e d d e s p i t e the r e c e n t c a l l s by Stack (1976) and R o t t e r (Note 7) to do so. Because the three experiments which comprise t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n are concerned with the a s s o c i a t i o n between r i s k and t r u s t , the two s t u d i e s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerned with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between these v a r i a b l e s are reviewed here. Deutsch (1958), an e a r l y i n v e s t i g a t o r , o f t r u s t , d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the v a r i a b l e s " t r u s t " and " r i s k " i n terms of t h e i r p r o b a b i l i t y of outcome. S p e c i f i c a l l y , he s t a t e d t h a t i n r i s k - t a k i n g the p r o b a b i l i t y o f the expected outcome o c c u r r i n g was much s m a l l e r than i n t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s . I n i t i a l l y , r i s k was seen as a "nuisance v a r i a b l e " i n t r u s t 24 r e s e a r c h , b u t s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o t r u s t t o r e q u i r e e x p l i c i t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . In r e s e a r c h e m p l o y i n g n o n - z e r o sum games ( e . g . , t h e P r i s o n e r ' s D i l e m m a ) , t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between r i s k and t r u s t was l a r g e l y i g n o r e d . I n a n o t h e r s t u d y , L i T l i b r i d g e and L u n d s t e d t (1967) c o r r e l a t e d r i s k - t a k i n g and d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t . R i s k - t a k i n g was measured by a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f Kogan and W a l l a c h ' s d i l e m m a - o f - c h o i c e p a r a d i g m ( W a l l a c h and Kogan, 1965) and d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t was a s s e s s e d by a s u b s c a l e from C a t t e l l ' s S i x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . R e s u l t s showed t h a t , b a s e d on t h e s e q u e s t i o n n a i r e m e a s u r e s , r i s k -t a k i n g and t r u s t d i d c o - v a r y and t h a t h i g h t r u s t s c o r e s were a s s o c i a t e d - w i t h h i g h e r l e v e l s o f r i s k t h a n low t r u s t s c o r e s . O b v i o u s l y , t h e r i s k and t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p has n o t been t h o r o u g h l y e x p l o r e d and t h e r e i s need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g -a t i o n . The above summary o f t r u s t d e f i n i t i o n s and r e s e a r c h a d m i t t e d l y has imposed a r t i f i c i a l d i v i s i o n s . But the r e s e a r c h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h have been s u g g e s t e d do s e r v e t o emphasize the v a r i o u s a s p e c t s o f t r u s t . F u r t h e r -more, t h e f o r e g o i n g r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s new a r e a s f o r t r u s t r e s e a r c h t o pursue, , as w i l l be seen i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n . 25 Background to the Proposed Experiments As i s the case i n the r e s e a r c h of ot h e r s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s such as h e l p i n g behaviour and a l t r u i s m , r e s e a r c h on i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t has f o l l o w e d two main paths: t r u s t as a p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t , and t r u s t behaviour as i t i s i n f l u e n c e d by s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s . The i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s p o s i t i o n a l and s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s has been l e s s o f t e n s t u d i e d . Most t r u s t r e s e a r c h along the l i n e s of t r a i t i n v e s t -i g a t i o n has r e l i e d upon R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e , Wrightsman's Philosophies,of Human Nature S c a l e , and, to a l e s s e r extent, subscales o f C a t t e l l ' s 16 P e r s o n a l i t y F a c t o r s T e s t . To date, none of these s c a l e s has shown str o n g c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h a v a r i e t y o f t r u s t behaviours. Never-t h e l e s s , , t r a i t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . c o n t i n u e . S i t u a t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of t r u s t have c o n s i d e r e d f a c t o r s such as where one i s ; wi t h whom one i s i n t e r a c t i n g ( i . e . , the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the other person); how long one must t r u s t ; when one t r u s t s ; why, one t r u s t s ; e t c . The importance of s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n r e l a t i o n to d i s p o s i t i o n may be understood by c o n s i d e r i n g the two d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s o f l o c k i n g c a r doors and l e n d i n g money. Most people l o c k t h e i r c a r doors i n a dark, unattended, downtown p a r k i n g l o t w h i l e they would not do so a t a group 26 p i c n i c . In the case of l e n d i n g money, more people would lend money to a f r i e n d than to a s t r a n g e r . In these two s i t u a t i o n s , d i s p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l s of t r u s t do not a p p r e c i a b l y a f f e c t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t behaviour a r i s i n g from s i t u a t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n s , such as c i t y - c o u n t r y , f r i e n d - s t r a n g e r dimensions. Extreme t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s can be concocted so t h a t a l l people w i l l t r u s t ; o t h e r s i t u -a t i o n s where no one would trust."'"'1' S i t u a t i o n a l e f f e c t s can overcome i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n . However, few t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s present themselves i n these extreme terms. The m a j o r i t y of t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s are more ambiguous and, d o u b t l e s s , admit the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of d i s p o s i t i o n and other f a c t o r s i n a r r i v i n g a t an ac c u r a t e p r e d i c t i o n of t r u s t behaviour. A f u r t h e r c o m p l i c a t i o n t o understanding t r u s t behaviour a r i s e s because, as a complex behaviour, t r u s t i s not always the s o l e m o t i v a t o r . People i n the same s i t u a t i o n make d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t i o n s about i t , a t t e n d to d i f f e r e n t cues, and respond to d i f f e r e n t m o t i v a t i o n s . I t i s q u i t e probable t h a t d i s p o s i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s such as how trustworthy one b e l i e v e s o thers to be, how o p t i m i s t i c one i s about p o s i t i v e outcomes r e s u l t i n g from one's behaviour, and how much' What Mixon (1972) d e s c r i b e s as " A l l or None" r e s e a r c h . 27 importance one p l a c e s on the v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n a l , outcomes u n d e r l i e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i s c r e p a n c i e s . I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s c o n s p i r e a g a i n s t u n i f o r m i t y o f behaviour among people i n the same s i t u a t i o n . Such d i f f e r e n c e s are g r i s t f o r the p s y c h o l o g i s t ' s m i l l . The c o r r e l a t i o n between a t t i t u d e and behaviour has o f t e n been shown to be low. Furthermore, as Proshansky and Seidenberg .(1965) p o i n t out: . . . t o expect a simple, c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between a person's a t t i t u d e and h i s behaviour i s to ignore the complexity of persons and s i t u a t i o n s . . .[sjome a t t i t u d e s may have a g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l f o r o v e r t behaviour than others ... . [ a j t t i t u d e s have consequences f o r behaviour only to the extent t h a t they are aroused by a p p r o p r i a t e s i t u a t i o n a l cues . . . . ,No.less s i g n i f i c a n t i s the f a c t t h a t even i n s i t u a t i o n s where an a t t i t u d e has been aroused, t h e r e may be s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s t h a t l e a d to the a r o u s a l of s t r o n g e r , competing a t t i t u d e s or.heeds, thereby p r e v e n t i n g the f i r s t a t t i t u d e from i n f l u e n c i n g the person's behaviour, (p. 101) In the case of t r u s t r e s e a r c h , s i t u a t i o n s of "pure t r u s t " are d i f f i c u l t , i f not i m p o s s i b l e , t o c r e a t e i n s i d e or o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y . T r u s t a t t i t u d e s are r a r e l y h e l d w i t h the t e n a c i t y and c o n v i c t i o n which c h a r a c t e r i z e primary b e l i e f s such as r e l i g i o n or m o r a l i t y . Consequently, t r u s t r e s e a r c h e r s w i l l always be plagued by competing "noi s e " o f oth e r a t t i t u d e s and va l u e s which adds t o the i m p r e c i s i o n i n i n t e r p r e t i n g data. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the t o p i c s 28 of u n d e r l y i n g t r u s t a t t i t u d e s and behaviours are important warp and weft i n the s o c i a l f a b r i c , and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l not d e t e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t i n t h i s t o p i c . The Experiments Three experiments comprise t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . An o p p o r t u n i t y was p r o v i d e d i n the f i r s t experiment to i n v e s t -i g a t e t r u s t behaviour i n r e l a t i o n t o u n s p e c i f i e d o t h e r s , t h a t i s , people i n g e n e r a l , and then, i n the second e x p e r i -ment, t o i n v e s t i g a t e t r u s t behaviour i n r e l a t i o n to a s p e c i f i c s t r a n g e r i n a f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n . Experiment I I I was a r e p l i c a t i o n of a study by Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (1975). The f i r s t two experiments took p l a c e i n the l i b r a r y at the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a . The experimental measure i n Experiment I was whether or not women l e f t t h e i r coats and books on a bench out of view while they were i n a t o i l e t c u b i c l e . The second experiment measured s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t response to a request t h a t they borrow books f o r a s t r a n g e r on t h e i r own l i b r a r y c a r d . In Experiments I and I I , l e v e l o f r i s k was" manipulated by the experimenter. R i s k i s d i s c u s s e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e as being composed of the value of the o b j e c t a t stake and 29 the p r o b a b i l i t y of n e g a t i v e outcome (Wallach and Kogan, 1967). In terms of the experimental t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s which f o l l o w , f a c t o r s such as the p o s t i n g of a warning s i g n , the l o c a t i o n of the washroom and l i b r a r y , the type of a r t i c l e s c a r r i e d by s u b j e c t s , and, the number and s i z e of books s u b j e c t s were asked to borrow are r e l e v a n t to l e v e l of manipulated r i s k d e c i s i o n s . In Experiment I where people i n g e n e r a l were to be t r u s t e d , the m a n i p u l a t i o n of r i s k most l i k e l y a f f e c t e d s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of o t h e r s . In the h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n , the p o s t i n g of a warning s i g n i m p l i e d t h a t others were not t r u s t w o r t h y . In Experiment I I where a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a n g e r was i n v o l v e d , the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the s t r a n g e r presumably remained co n s t a n t d e s p i t e changes i n l e v e l of r i s k (the same i n d i v i d u a l , i . e . , the experimenter, approached s u b j e c t s with a t r u s t r e q u e s t ) . In the high r i s k ' c o n d i t i o n , the v a l u e of the l i b r a r y m a t e r i a l which the s u b j e c t was asked to borrow was g r e a t e r than i t had been i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n . Hence, i n these two experiments l e v e l of r i s k was i n c r e a s e d by the m a n i p u l a t i o n of i t s d i f f e r e n t components. In Experiment I, the p e r c e p t i o n of the p r o b a b i l i t y of a negative outcome was i n c r e a s e d while the v a l u e / u t i l i t y v a r i a b l e remained the same. In 30 Experiment I I , the value of the o b j e c t s a t stake changed over the r i s k c o n d i t i o n w h i l e the p r o b a b i l i t y of n e g a t i v e outcome remained the same. As was done i n Wright e t a l . (1975), i n Experiment I I I s u b j e c t s were contacted by phone and asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a psychology experiment. The s u b j e c t s were members of an undergraduate psychology c l a s s who had p r e v i o u s l y com-p l e t e d the ITS i n the study of Wright e t a l . and i n Experiment I I I , s u b j e c t s had a l r e a d y taken part, i n e i t h e r Experiment I or II and had completed the ITS i n connec t i o n with one of these experiments. ITS scores p r o v i d e d the estimates of s u b j e c t s ' d i s p o s -i t i o n a l t r u s t l e v e l and the number and k i n d of q u e s t i o n s asked by s u b j e c t s when phoned by experimenters were taken as i n d i c e s o f b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t . Subjects were unaware of the connec t i o n between the telephone request and t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the ITS. Wright e t a l . found t h a t those s u b j e c t s who obtained low ITS scores" (the bottom t h i r d scores) asked more q u e s t i o n s , and more q u e s t i o n s of a s u s p i c i o u s ( r a t h e r than l o g i s t i c a l ) nature, than d i d s u b j e c t s who ob t a i n e d h i g h ITS s c o r e s (the top t h i r d s c o r e s ) . There were s e v e r a l reasons f o r c a r r y i n g out the r e p l i c a t i o n o f Wright e t a l . i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h 31 Experiments I and I I . F i r s t , Wright e t a l . p u r p o r t t o show i n a n a t u r a l i s t i c experiment important b e h a v i o u r a l v a l i d a t i o n of the ITS, and, because one of the purposes of the f i r s t two experiments i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n was to o b t a i n s i m i l a r v a l i d a t i o n , the Wright e t a l . procedures are c l e a r l y r e l e v a n t . Second, the t r u s t measures which had been employed i n the Wright e t a l . study were f a r removed i n nature from the item content of the ITS. Such would a l s o be the case i n the f i r s t two experiments r e p o r t e d here. T h i r d , by r e p l i c a t i n g the Wright et a l . study, the experimenter sought to o b t a i n an a d d i t i o n a l t r u s t measure from s u b j e c t s who were p a r t i c i p a n t s i n Experiments I and I I , without a r o u s i n g t h e i r s u s p i c i o n s about the experimental v a r i a b l e o f i n t e r e s t and the experimental hypotheses. The o p p o r t u n i t y i s not o f t e n found t o o b t a i n s e v e r a l t r u s t measures from experimental s u b j e c t s without a r o u s i n g s u s p i c i o n . Although measurement i n two t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s g i v e s an admit t e d l y l i m i t e d sampling of a l l t r u s t behaviours, there was a t l e a s t , some o p p o r t u n i t y to check f o r b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y . F i n a l l y , a r e p l i c a t i o n of Wright e t a l . l i n k s the r e s u l t s o f the f i r s t two experiments to the e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e . The b e h a v i o u r a l measures of Experiments I and II 32 a r e i n n o v a t i v e and d e v i a t e from t h e more u s u a l method employed i n t r u s t r e s e a r c h ( e . g . , game p a r a d i g m s ) . C o n -s e q u e n t l y , i t i s advantageous t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e b e h a v i o u r a l measures i n t h e f i r s t two e x p e r i m e n t s a r e s i m i l a r l y r e l a t e d t o the ITS as t h e b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t measures r e p o r t e d i n W r i g h t e t a l . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s such as t h e I T S , though t h e y a r e d e s i g n e d t o measure s t a b l e , e n d u r i n g d i s p o s i t i o n s , a r e s u s c e p t i b l e t o changes o v e r t i m e and s u b j e c t g r o u p . H e n c e , i t was deemed d e s i r a b l e t o r e p l i c a t e W r i g h t e t a l . w i t h the same s u b j e c t s t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e f i r s t two e x p e r i m e n t s . ( A l l e x p e r i -m e n t a t i o n took p l a c e w i t h i n a two month p e r i o d . ) A Conceptualization of Trust The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s b a s e d upon a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e two major c o n t r i b u t o r s t o t r u s t b e h a v i o u r . The f i r s t i s t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n w h i c h i n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s i s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d t h r o u g h t h e use o f R o t t e r ' s I T S . H i s s c a l e t a p s t h e g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c y a p e r s o n has about " . . . t h e w o r d , p r o m i s e , v e r b a l o r w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t o f a n o t h e r i n d i v i d -u a l o r g r o u p . " Such e x p e c t a n c i e s a i d i n making b e h a v i o u r a l d e c i s i o n s . The second c o n t r i b u t o r t o t r u s t b e h a v i o u r i s r i s k a s s e s s m e n t . R i s k assessment i t s e l f i s b a s e d upon two e l e m e n t s . One i s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n 33 which c o n t r i b u t e to l e v e l of r i s k ; another i s the aspects of r i s k assessment r e s u l t i n g from i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r -a c t i o n . As was mentioned e a r l i e r , l e v e l of r i s k i s based upon the p r o b a b i l i t y of a n e g a t i v e outcome and the u t i l i t y o r value of the o b j e c t at stake. I n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e assessments of t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , age, s o c i a l group membership, sex, the type of c o n t a c t between the t r u s t agent and s u b j e c t ( f a c e - t o - f a c e or n o t ) , and the number of people (one or.many) s u b j e c t s must t r u s t . L e v e l of r i s k and i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e r i s k assessments. In t u r n , t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n and r i s k assessment produce the observable t r u s t behaviour w i t h one i n t e r v e n i n g step, namely, b e h a v i o u r a l i n t e n t i o n . B e h a v i o u r a l i n t e n t i o n i s based upon s o c i a l norms and the s u b j e c t ' s a t t i t u d e s towards a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour ( F i s h b e i n and Ajzen, 1975). In the case of t r u s t , con-c e i v a b l y d i s p o s i t i o n and r i s k assessment might encourage a t r u s t behaviour but s o c i a l norms and s u b j e c t ' s a t t i t u d e s might o v e r r i d e such a t r u s t d e c i s i o n . Conversely, even though d i s p o s i t i o n and r i s k assessment might tend towards d i s t r u s t , one might t r u s t because of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , the impact of f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n , and/or because of s o c i a l p r e s s u r e . No attempt was made to i n v e s t i g a t e 34 s y s t e m a t i c a l l y the e f f e c t of these v a r i a b l e s i n the p r e s e n t experiment. S c h e m a t i c a l l y , the d e r i v a t i o n of t r u s t behaviour i n a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n may be r e presented as i l l u s t r a t e d on the f o l l o w i n g page. The d o t t e d l i n e shown between t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n and r i s k assessment i n d i c a t e s t h a t these v a r i a b l e s are not independent. A g e n e r a l purpose of these experiments i t to i n v e s t i g a t e some of the f a c t o r s i n c l u d e d i n the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t o u t l i n e d above. In these experiments, the independent v a r i a b l e i s l e v e l of manipulated r i s k . The two dependent v a r i a b l e s are r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour. The d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t scores obtained from the ITS (Rotter's I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t Scale) i s an antecedent v a r i a b l e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , because of the s t r o n g demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , d i r e c t measurement of the i n t e r p e r s o n a l component of r i s k assessment c o u l d not be undertaken i n the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i -g a t i o n . The experimental s i t u a t i o n s ' i n v o l v e s u b j e c t s ' behaviour toward s t r a n g e r s , e i t h e r i n one-to-one s i t u a t i o n s or i n a p u b l i c p l a c e where many unobserved s t r a n g e r s must be trusted.. Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were reduced by g a t h e r i n g data i n n o n - l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g s . 35 TRUST SITUATION Trust D i s p o s i t i o n Risk Assessment Level of Interpersonal ( Risk V a r i a b l e s Behaviour a l I n t e n t i o n Trust Behaviour Figure 1. A C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of Trust Behaviour 36 A General Statement of the Hypotheses I t i s hypothesized t h a t t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n i s a s i g n i f i c a n t determinant o f t r u s t behaviour. F i g u r e 1, as w e l l as p r e v i o u s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s and d i s c u s s i o n s of t r u s t ( v i z . , Kee and Knox, 197o; Stack, 1976) , i l l u s t r a t e the importance of d i s p o s i t i o n t o t r u s t behaviour. There i s some q u e s t i o n , however, as to whether the ITS w i l l prove to be an a p p r o p r i a t e measure, of t h i s d i s p o s i t i o n . I t has been w i d e l y a s s e r t e d t h a t r i s k p l a y s a r o l e i n t r u s t decision-making. In these experiments, the e f f e c t of two d i f f e r e n t forms of r i s k ( r i s k assessment and l e v e l of r i s k ) on t r u s t behaviour i s i n v e s t i g a t e d and by s u b j e c t s ' responses to one q u e s t i o n n a i r e item, some p r e l i m i n a r y i n d i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r u s t and r i s k -t a k i n g w i l l be shown. As was i n d i c a t e d i n F i g u r e 1, r i s k assessment d e r i v e s from s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of s i t u a t i o n a l r i s k and from judgements about i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s (e.g., the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the t r u s t agent, the number o f people to be t r u s t e d and t h e i r i d e n t i t y , e t c . ) . I t i s hypothesized t h a t low r i s k assessments are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r u s t i n g behaviour; and, h i g h r i s k assessments w i t h d i s t r u s t i n g behaviour. 37 L e v e l of manipulated r i s k i s expected to have a g e n e r a l i z a b l e e f f e c t on t r u s t behaviour. That i s , i t i s hypothesized t h a t i n c r e a s e s i n the independent v a r i a b l e of r i s k w i l l tend to decrease the frequency of b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t . The t h i r d type of r i s k , namely r i s k - t a k i n g , i s a v a r -i a b l e more o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n s of chance, sometimes s k i l l , and gaming than i n the weighing of a l t e r -n a t i v e s i n a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n . Very o f t e n r i s k - t a k i n g s i t u a t i o n s do not have the i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n which i s such a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n t r u s t . In these experiments, because of the l i m i t e d f a s h i o n i n which t h i s aspect of r i s k was tapped, only a t e n t a t i v e a s s e r t i o n of the manner i n which r i s k - t a k i n g and t r u s t behaviour are a s s o c i a t e d can be made. I t i s p r e d i c t e d t h a t r i s k - t a k i n g w i l l be s i g n i f -i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t r u s t behaviour. There were, of course, f u r t h e r i s s u e s explored by the s e r i e s of experiments r e p o r t e d here. For example, i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t , d e s p i t e i n c r e a s e s i n l e v e l of r i s k , t here would n e v e r t h e l e s s be people who t r u s t e d . Another q u e s t i o n to be examined was: Are the t r u s t a c t i o n s of these i n d i v i d u a l s r e l a t e d to h i g h d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t ? How do low s i t u a t i o n a l r i s k assessments a f f e c t t r u s t behaviour? Other qu e s t i o n s were: How c l o s e l y b e h a v i o u r a l data c o r r e s -38 ponded to subjects' verbal reporting of th e i r motives for thei r behaviour; how r i s k assessment i s related to d i s -p o s i t i o n a l trust as measured by the ITS; how much of trust behaviour can be accounted for by s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c factors? In the course of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , these issues w i l l be addressed and a more s p e c i f i c statement of the above hypotheses made. 39 Method There were many meth o d o l o g i c a l p a r a l l e l s i n the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Experiments I and I I . Consequently, to a v o i d unnecessary r e p e t i t i o n i n d e s c r i b i n g these experiments, the methods of these f i r s t two experiments w i l l be d i s c u s s e d together wherever p o s s i b l e . Experiment I I I was d i f f e r e n t i n purpose and method from the f i r s t two experiments and i t w i l l be d e s c r i b e d s e p a r a t e l y . Experiments I and II Subjects. In Experiment I, s u b j e c t s were 116 female students a t t e n d i n g the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. They were r e c r u i t e d from users o f the McPherson L i b r a r y washroom. (The McPherson L i b r a r y i s the main l i b r a r y on campus and the washroom i s l o c a t e d i n the basement of the b u i l d i n g . ) I f a woman ente r e d the washroom alone c a r r y i n g books, b r i e f c a s e , knapsack, coat or other such belongings and then entered a t o i l e t c u b i c l e , she became a s u b j e c t i n the.experiment. On t h i s b a s i s , 56 women p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n and 60. p a r t -i c i p a t e d i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n . The low r i s k con-d i t i o n (or c o n t r o l ) was run b e f o r e the h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n to a v o i d c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t s of p o s t i n g a warning s i g n (high r i s k ) . 40 In Experiment I I , 121 female students i n the lobby of the McPherson L i b r a r y o f the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a p a r t i c -i p a t e d i n the experiment. Women were s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of being alone and us i n g the ca r d c a t a l o g u e , Xerox machine or other l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d near the lobby. S i x t y women were i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n and 61 were i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n . The low r i s k c o n d i t i o n was completed b e f o r e the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n was run. (Part of the experimental procedure i n Experiments I and II'was the completion and r e t u r n by m a i l o f a q u e s t i o n -n a i r e . High a t t r i t i o n r a t e s are commonly found when q u e s t i o n n a i r e s must be re t u r n e d by m a i l ; however, i n the present experiments, completed data [ t r u s t behaviour, r i s k r a t i n g s , motives, and responses t o the m a i l q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s ] i n Experiment I were obt a i n e d from 52 [93%] women i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n and 54..: [90%] i n the hi g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n . In.Experiment IT,.the r e s p e c t i v e r e t u r n r a t e s were 50 [83%] and 60 [ 9 9 % ] . Responses were s u f f i c i e n t l y high f o r meaningful a n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s . ) Procedure. Experiment r was completed over a two and a h a l f week p e r i o d with m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e t u r n e d s e v e r a l weeks beyond t h i s p e r i o d . The s i t e of the washroom i s one f l o o r below the l i b r a r y entrance. To reach the washroom, s u b j e c t s c r o s s through a 41 l a r g e f o y e r a t the f o o t of the l i b r a r y s t a i r s . The experimenter s a t on a bench i n the f o y e r i n view of the washroom but out of the view of women e n t e r i n g the washroom. The washroom has two doors approximately 15 f e e t a p a r t . Between the two doors, t h e r e i s a s i x - f o o t bench w i t h a c l o t h e s rack above i t . The washbasins and c u b i c l e s are f u r t h e r i n t o the room. There are e i g h t t o i l e t c u b i c l e s and fo u r washbasins w i t h m i r r o r s along f a c i n g w a l l s of the room. In the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n , no a d d i t i o n a l warning s i g n s were p l a c e d on the outer two washroom doors. In the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n , l a r g e warning ^ i g n s were prominently d i s -p layed on each of the doors. The sign s (36 x 20 cm) were p r i n t e d i n L e t r a s e t on red a r t board and were s i m i l a r i n design to other s i g n s d i s p l a y e d i n the l i b r a r y . The s i g n s read: "Do Not Leave Belongings Unattended. S e v e r a l 12 A r t i c l e s Have Been S t o l e n . " The experimenter waited i n the f o y e r f o r a minute a f t e r a p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t had entered the washroom. The experimenter •""'it i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t w h i l e the experimenter's U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a study was i n pr o g r e s s , s i m i l a r warning s i g n s were p l a c e d i n the Sedgewick L i b r a r y a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, presumably by the s t a f f and not by another t r u s t r e s e a r c h e r . The p o s t i n g of these s i g n s demon-s t r a t e s t h a t the experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n used here had a gr e a t d e a l o f r e a l i s m . 42 then entered the washroom and observed whether the s u b j e c t ' s p e r s o n a l belongings had been l e f t on the bench between the washroom doors o r taken i n t o the t o i l e t c u b i c l e w i t h the s u b j e c t . From t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n , the experimenter recorded i n a notebook the experimental .behaviour as e i t h e r t r u s t i n g (belongings l e f t on bench) or d i s t r u s t i n g (belongings taken i n t o t he t o i l e t c u b i c l e ) . As each s u b j e c t l e f t the washroom, the experimenter approached her and s a i d : Excuse me. I am doing a study on l i b r a r y s e c u r i t y which i s not commissioned.by the L i b r a r y o r U n i v e r s i t y but i s being done wit h t h e i r knowledge.13 I wonder whether . you c o u l d take a few minutes to answer a couple of q u e s t i o n s . I f a s u b j e c t agreed (only 8 out of 124 people [ l e s s than 7%] who were approached r e f u s e d at t h i s p o i n t ) , the experimenter continued e i t h e r w i t h the r i s k q u e s t i o n or the motive q u e s t i o n . (These two qu e s t i o n s were counterbalanced to c o n t r o l f o r order e f f e c t s . ) The r i s k - q u e s t i o n was posed i n words as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e to the f o l l o w i n g : The C h i e f L i b r a r i a n had been n o t i f i e d of the study and had g i v e n h i s approval with the p r o v i s o t h a t the extent of the L i b r a r y ' s and U n i v e r s i t y ' s involvement be made c l e a r to s u b j e c t s . These experiments a l s o r e c e i v e d the approval of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Committee on Research I n v o l v i n g Human S u b j e c t s . 43 In the women's washroom, there's a bench where people can leave t h e i r t h i n g s w h i l e u s i n g the t o i l e t c u b i c l e s . Keeping i n mind who uses the washroom, how long you probably would leave your t h i n g s unattended, how i n c o n v e n i e n t i t . would be to have your t h i n g s s t o l e n and how l i k e l y i t would be t h a t t h i n g s would be removed by someone e l s e , how much r i s k do you t h i n k there i s i n l e a v i n g the t h i n g s you are c a r r y i n g on the bench i n there? I'd l i k e you to use t h i s s c a l e (show) to l e t me know which p o i n t along i t d e s c r i b e s your c h o i c e . Subjects were then shown a white c a r d (30 x 16 cm) w i t h a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e p r i n t e d on i t . The end p o i n t s of the s c a l e were l a b e l l e d i n the f o l l o w i n g manner: 1 2 3 4 5 Not a t A l l Very Risky Risky S u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s were recorded by the experimenter i n a note-book along with t h e i r p r e v i o u s l y noted t r u s t behaviour and a code number. At t h i s p o i n t , ' s u b j e c t s were asked to e x p l a i n i n t h e i r own words t h e i r motives f o r t h e i r behaviour. (Subjects gave pe r m i s s i o n f o r t h e i r responses to be tape recorded. The experimenter t r a n s c r i b e d s u b j e c t s ' responses l a t e r . ) " S u b j e c t s were asked one of two q u e s t i o n s depending upon which one was a p p r o p r i a t e : "Why would you take your belongings (the a p p r o p r i a t e a r t i c l e named) i n t o a t o i l e t c u b i c l e with 44 you?" or "Why would you leave your belongings (named) on the bench while you were i n a t o i l e t c u b i c l e ? " (Although some might construe these q u e s t i o n s as i n v a d i n g p r i v a c y and expect t h a t s u b j e c t s might r e s e n t being i n v e s t i g a t e d about t h e i r h a b i t s i n the washroom, none of the s u b j e c t s r e s o r t e d to l e v i t y or h o s t i l i t y i n answering.) The f i n a l s tep of the procedure i s the same f o r Experiments I and II and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r . In Experiment I I , the s o l i c i t i n g of s u b j e c t s took approximately three weeks to complete. M a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from s u b j e c t s took an a d d i t i o n a l s e v e r a l weeks to be r e t u r n e d a f t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n . The experimental procedure took p l a c e i n the busy lobby, card c a t a l o g u e , and r e f e r e n c e area of the McPherson 14 L i b r a r y a t the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a . The experimenter approached l i k e l y s u b j e c t s who were st a n d i n g or working alone. The experimenter c a r r i e d e i t h e r a s i n g l e , r a t h e r o r d i n a r y - l o o k i n g book Clow r i s k ) or t h r e e expensive-appearing art books (high r i s k ) along with a clip-board. A request, based as c l o s e l y as possible on the following In experiments such as the ones o u t l i n e d here where the experimenter performs the manipulation;, t h e r e i s , of course j u s t cause i n s u s p e c t i n g t h a t experimenter b i a s may w e l l have determined the outcome. T h i s i s s u e w i l l be addressed i n the D i s c u s s i o n . 45 wording, was made to the p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t : H i ! Could you ple a s e help me? I have an exam tomorrow and I need t h i s book (these books) to study but I've l e f t my card a t home. . Would you take t h i s book (these books) out f o r me? I promise to r e t u r n them. Sub j e c t s were gi v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o agree with or to r e f u s e the experimenter's request.. A dichotomous r a t i n g of s u b j e c t s ' behaviour as e i t h e r t r u s t i n g (agreed to borrow book[s] f o r the experimenter) or d i s t r u s t i n g (would not agree t o borrow book[s] f o r the experimenter) was made. The experimenter thanked the s u b j e c t and t o l d her t h a t the request had been p a r t of a .study which the experimenter was doing on l i b r a r y s e c u r i t y . (Once again, the r o l e of the U n i v e r s i t y and L i b r a r y i n t h i s study was explained.) S u b j e c t s were asked f o r t h e i r f u r t h e r c o o p e r a t i o n to answer a few quest i o n s and take a m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e home to complete. O b s e r v a t i o n a l data were recorded f o r s u b j e c t s r e f u s i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the survey p a r t of the study i n order to determine whether these s u b j e c t s were a b i a s e d subsample from the b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g or d i s t r u s t i n g groups. (Only 2 out o f 121 s u b j e c t s [ l e s s than 2%] r e f u s e d to p a r t i c i p a t e a t . t h i s p o i n t . ) As had been done i n Experiment I, r i s k r a t i n g s and the motive q u e s t i o n were counterbalanced to t e s t f o r order e f f e c t s . Hence, one h a l f of the s u b j e c t s i n each r i s k 46 c o n d i t i o n were asked f i r s t f o r t h e i r r a t i n g s o f t h e r i s k i n h e r e n t i n the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s r e q u e s t i n words p h r a s e d as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e as t h e f o l l o w i n g : J u s t now I asked you t o t a k e o u t t h i s l i b r a r y book ( these l i b r a r y books) on y o u r c a r d . K e e p i n g i n mind what d i f f i c u l t i e s I c o u l d have c a u s e d y o u by n o t r e t u r n i n g t h i s book ( these books) and how l i k e l y i t i s t h a t a p e r s o n making t h i s r e q u e s t a c t u a l l y w o u l d n ' t r e t u r n t h e book (books) which she borrowed on y o u r c a r d , how much r i s k do you t h i n k t h e r e was (would have been)? I ' v e g o t a s c a l e h e r e and I ' d l i k e you t o show me w h i c h p o i n t on t h e s c a l e you would c h o o s e . The r i s k r a t i n g s c a l e was i d e n t i c a l t o t h e one d e s c r i b e d above and u s e d i n E x p e r i m e n t I . S u b j e c t s were asked t o e x p l a i n i n t h e i r own words t h e i r m o t i v e s i n a g r e e i n g t o o r r e f u s i n g the e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s r e q u e s t t o borrow b o o k s - o n t h e i r l i b r a r y c a r d . U n l i k e E x p e r i m e n t I , where s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o the m o t i v e q u e s t i o n had been t a p e r e c o r d e d , s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s i n E x p e r i m e n t I I were t r a n s c r i b e d by hand on c a r d s . Tape r e c o r d i n g i n the s e c o n d e x p e r i m e n t had n o t been u n d e r t a k e n b e c a u s e o f t h e l o g i s t i c s o f h a n d l i n g r e c o r d i n g equipment and l a r g e a r t b o o k s . F u r t h e r m o r e , because o f t h e more p u b l i c n a t u r e o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f the e x p e r i m e n t ( i n a busy l o b b y as opposed t o an o u t - o f - v i e w l o c a t i o n i n the basement o f the l i b r a r y ) , i t was t h o u g h t t h a t t a p e - r e c o r d i n g s u b j e c t s would a t t r a c t t o o much a t t e n t i o n and a r o u s e s u s p i c i o n . 47 Hence, the l e s s o b t r u s i v e method of w r i t i n g down s u b j e c t s ' responses was chosen. The procedure f o r Experiments I and II was the same from t h i s p o i n t on. Subjects were gi v e n m a i l q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s (Appendices A and B) which c a r r i e d a code number corresponding to the r e c o r d of b e h a v i o u r a l data and the r i s k r a t i n g s and responses to the motive q u e s t i o n . The experimenter s t r e s s e d how important i t was t h a t she got a h i g h q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n r a t e i n order t o complete her study. To f u r t h e r encourage a s u b s t a n t i a l r e t u r n r a t e , each s u b j e c t was a l s o t o l d t h a t from the r e t u r n e d , completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , one person c o u l d be s e l e c t e d a t random to r e c e i v e her c h o i c e o f e i t h e r $25 cash or 50 Western Express L o t t e r y t i c k e t s w i t h a r e t a i l v a l u e of $50. Subject s were asked f o r t h e i r names and telephone numbers so t h a t a reminder c a l l c o u l d be made i f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was not r e t u r n e d w i t h i n two weeks. F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s were informed t h a t they would r e c e i v e the r e s u l t s of the study and the name of the p r i z e winner a f t e r the experiment had been completed. (This commitment to s u b j e c t s was, of course, f u l f i l l e d . ) Measures. The f o l l o w i n g measures were ob t a i n e d from s u b j e c t s who completed a l l p a r t s o f the experiments i n c l u d i n g the m a i l survey: 48 a. Dichotomous t r u s t - d i s t r u s t assignment d e r i v e d from the s u b j e c t ' s a c t u a l behaviour i n s i d e the washroom or from s u b j e c t s ' response to the l i b r a r y card r e q u e s t . 15 b. S u b j e c t s ' own r i s k assessment of the washroom or l i b r a r y card s i t u a t i o n made along a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e as d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y . The end-points of the s c a l e were l a b e l l e d and showed (1) as "Not a t A l l Risky" and (.5) as "Very R i s k y " . c. An o n - s i t e , open-ended q u e s t i o n about motives f o r s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t i n g (or d i s t r u s t i n g ) a c t i o n . In Experiment I, s u b j e c t s ' responses were tape recorded (with t h e i r permission) and l a t e r t r a n s -s c r i b e d by the experimenter. In Experiment I I , the experimenter wrote down on the^cards s u b j e c t s ' responses as c l o s e l y to verbatim as p r a c t i c a b l e . Code numbers were used to i d e n t i f y s u b j e c t s . A f t e r the experiments had been administered, three independent judges were asked t o c l a s s i f y s u b j e c t s ' motives as t r u s t - r e l a t e d or n o t t r u s t -r e l a t e d . For each experiment, judges were f i r s t read a l l of<the motives g i v e n by s u b j e c t s f o r the Measures b and c were counterbalanced f o r o r d e r . 4 9 t r u s t b e h a v i o u r . From t h e s e m o t i v e s , judges decided among t h e m s e l v e s g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e two c a t e g o r i e s . "('See A p p e n d i x C.) The e x p e r i m e n t e r t h e n r e a d o u t e a c h s u b j e c t ' s r e a s o n f o r h e r b e h a v i o u r ( a l o n g w i t h s u b j e c t ' s code number). Judges i n d e p e n d e n t l y c l a s s i f i e d each r e s p o n s e . A f t e r a l l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s had been done, judges r e a d o u t t h e i r c a t e g o r y f o r each s u b j e c t . In any c a s e where t h e r e was d i s -agreement about the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the s u b j e c t ' s m o t i v e was r e - r e a d and d i s c u s s e d u n t i l a l l judges a g r e e d on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . In t h i s way, a l l s u b j e c t s ' m o t i v e s were c l a s s i f i e d , d . The L i b r a r y S e c u r i t y Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (Appendix A) c o n t a i n e d s e v e r a l m e a s u r e s : i . "How n e c e s s a r y t o L i b r a r y s e c u r i t y and t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f t h e f t do you t h i n k s . t h e c o n -t r o l l e d e x i t i s ? " T h i s q u e s t i o n was answered a l o n g a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e w i t h t h e end p o i n t s l a b e l l e d (1) Not a t a l l N e c e s s a r y and (5) E x t r e m e l y N e c e s s a r y . i i . "Have you e v e r had any p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s s t o l e n i n the L i b r a r y ? " , " I f t h e r e was no s i g n s a d v i s i n g a g a i n s t l e a v i n g b e l o n g i n g s u n a t t e n d e d i n c a r r e l s and i f t h e r e were no s h o r t a g e o f c a r r e l s , would you l e a v e y o u r 50 books and coat i n the c a r r e l s w h ile you were away from the L i b r a r y d u r i n g lunch hour or w h i l e a t t e n d i n g a c l a s s ? " and "Should l o c k e r s be provided i n the L i b r a r y washrooms to leave c o a t s and books w h i l e u s i n g the t o i l e t c u b i c l e s ? " These three q u e s t i o n s were to be answered "Yes" or "No". - A d d i t i o n a l space was p r o v i d e d a f t e r the f i r s t two q u e s t i o n s f o r comments which s u b j e c t s might have. R i s k - t a k i n g q u e s t i o n : i . " I f your name i s s e l e c t e d t o win the p r i z e f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study, would you p r e f e r to r e c e i v e cash or l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ? " S u b j e c t s were asked to check the a p p r o p r i a t e answer ("$25 cash" or "50 Western Express L o t t e r y T i c k e t s " ) i n the.space p r o v i d e d on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . R o t t e r ' s I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e (Appendix B) which was l a b e l l e d "General Opinion Survey". The s c a l e has 40 items of which 15 are f i l l e r s . Items were scored along a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e upon which s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r agreement w i t h each statement. The p o i n t s on the s c a l e were l a b e l l e d a c c o r d i n g l y : " (.1) S t r o n g l y agree, 51 (2) M i l d l y agree, (3) Agree and d i s a g r e e e q u a l l y , (4) M i l d l y d i s a g r e e and (5) S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e . The ITS was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d and r e p o r t e d by R o t t e r (1967). Hypotheses and Analyses Hypothesis 1. D i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t scores w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o the experimental t r u s t behaviour. Rationale. E m p i r i c a l l y , i t has been shown t h a t t r u s t d i s p o s i t i o n , as measured by the ITS, i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of t r u s t behaviour. T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p has sometimes been demonstrated i n PDG s t u d i e s (e.g., Schlenker, Helm, and T e d e s c h i , 1973) as w e l l as i n other b e h a v i o u r a l s i t u a t i o n s (e.g., Wright e t a l . , 1975). S i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t r u s t measures of Experiments I and II and the ITS w i l l be f u r t h e r . v a l i d a t i o n of R o t t e r ' s s c a l e . Furthermore, p o s i t i v e f i n d i n g s w i l l demon-s t r a t e the a b i l i t y of ..the ITS to p r e d i c t a wider range of t r u s t behaviours. The outcome o f the hypothesis i s not a foregone c o n c l u s i o n , however. P e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s (e.g., M i s c h e l , 52 1967; Proshansky and Seidenberg, 1965) have o f t e n remarked upon the tenuous r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s p o s i t i o n and behaviour or a t t i t u d e and behaviour. From the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t behaviour o u t l i n e d p r e v i o u s l y (p. 27), d i s p o s i t i o n i s seen to be only one of the determinants of t r u s t behaviour. At t h i s j u n c t u r e , the r e l a t i v e a b i l i t y of d i s p o s i t i o n and r i s k assessment to p r e d i c t t r u s t behaviour i n these s i t u a t i o n s i s not known. A t e s t of Hypothesis 1 w i l l i n d i c a t e how w e l l the ITS c o r r e l a t e s with the experimental measures s t u d i e d i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . (Hypothesis 2 w i l l address the q u e s t i o n of how r i s k assessment r e l a t e s to t r u s t behaviour.) P r e d i c t i o n from.general a t t i t u d e s to s p e c i f i c behaviour i s always r i s k y and h i g h l y dependent upon the s u i t a b i l i t y of the measure f o r the task. C l e a r l y , however, Hypothesis 1 i s a matter worthy of e x p l o r a t i o n . P o i n t - b i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n . 53 Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 may be grouped together as they a l l d e a l with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t types of r i s k and t r u s t behaviour. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypotheses are as f o l l o w s : Hypothesis 2. There w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t r u s t behaviour i n the low r i s k than the h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n . Rationale.- An e s s e n t i a l component of a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n i s the e x i s t e n c e of v u l n e r a b i l i t y . I f the s i t u a t i o n o f f e r s l i t t l e r i s k , then to t r u s t i s not as p o t e n t i a l l y hazardous as i t would be when r i s k i s h i g h . Hence, when s u b j e c t s f e e l themselves t o be i n l i t t l e jeopardy, t r u s t i n g responses w i l l be more f r e q u e n t l y made. When r i s k i n c r e a s e s , t r u s t i n g becomes a l e s s a t t r a c t i v e b e h a v i o u r a l c h o i c e . L e v e l of manipulated r i s k i s a twofold v a r i a b l e based, upon the p r o b a b i l i t y of ne g a t i v e outcome and the value (or u t i l i t y ) of the o b j e c t a t r i s k (Wallach and Kogan, 1967). In these experiments, l e v e l of r i s k i s v a r i e d w h i l e other s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s remain constant and are not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y manipulated. S p e c i f i c a l l y , 54 i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n of Experiment I, a warning s i g n intended to i n c r e a s e sub-j e c t s ' e x p e c t a t i o n of a negative outcome was posted. On the other hand, i n Experiment I I , the i n c r e a s e i n s i z e and the number of l i b r a r y books which s u b j e c t s were asked t o borrow f o r the experimenter i n c r e a s e d the value component of r i s k . From these experiments, i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to examine e m p i r i c a l l y the d i r e c t e f f e c t of r i s k m a n i p u l a t i o n on t r u s t behaviour and to t e s t the hypothesis t h a t as s i t u -a t i o n a l r i s k i n c r e a s e s , fewer people e l e c t t r u s t i n g behaviour. Changing l e v e l o f r i s k was, moreover, a check of the experimenter's m a n i p u l a t i o n . Presumably, i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n , t h e r e should be lower r i s k assessments r e p o r t e d by s u b j e c t s i f the experimenter was s u c c e s s f u l i n changing the s i t u a t i o n along the dimension of r i s k . Analysis. Chi-Square A n a l y s i s . 55 Hypothesis 3. Risk assessment w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y -r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviours w i t h i n both low and h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n s . Rationale. From the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t des-c r i b e d e a r l i e r r i s k assessment i s d e r i v e d from both impersonal ( l e v e l of r i s k ) and i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . The second hypothesis d e a l s with the r e l a t i o n s h i p between o b j e c t i v e r i s k and t r u s t behaviour and the t h i r d hypothesis examines r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour. As i s shown i n the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t behaviour (p. 27), r i s k assessment i s h ypothesized to have two components: l e v e l of r i s k and i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . Hence, r i s k assessment should be a more acc u r a t e b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t o r than l e v e l of r i s k alone. For example, even though l e v e l of manipulated r i s k i s low., not a l l people w i l l t r u s t . There w i l l be i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the weighing of s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s such as i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s . I t i s expected t h a t there w i l l be an i n v e r s e s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between 56 r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour i n Experiments I and I I . Analay s i s : P o i n t - b i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n . Hypothesis 4. B e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to e l e c t the h i g h e r r i s k - t a k i n g s i t u a t i o n ( i . e . , l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ) than b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s . Rationale. Experiments'I and I I focus p r i m a r i l y on r i s k assessment; however, the m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n one q u e s t i o n which allows i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a d i f f e r e n t v a r -i a b l e , r i s k - t a k i n g . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t a l l s u b j e c t s i n Experiments I and II were t o l d t h a t one s u b j e c t whose name would be drawn at random from completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s would be p a i d f o r her p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the e x p e r i -ments. The form o f payment would be e i t h e r $2 5 cash or 50 Western Express L o t t e r y T i c k e t s . Subjects were gi v e n these i n c e n t i v e s to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e because these c h o i c e s of p r i z e r e presented d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of r i s k - t a k i n g . Although the odds of winning i n v o l v e d i n the p r i z e and t i c k e t s are not e x a c t l y known, the l o t t e r y , t i c k e t c h o ice r e p r e s e n t s acceptance 57 of higher r i s k - t a k i n g i n the sense of gambling and v a g a r i e s of chance. Hypothesis 4 a s s e r t s t h a t t h i s type of r i s k - t a k i n g w i l l show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t r u s t behaviour. An a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n would be necessary i f f i n d i n g s were n e g a t i v e : a conceptual d i f f e r e n c e between ^ s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g chance, luck or gambling and those s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t r u s t would have to be adopted. A d i s t i n c t i o n between t r u s t i n g and gambling -has a l r e a d y been drawn i n v a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l papers on t r u s t (e.g., Deutsch, 1958), and, hence, negative r e s u l t s between t r u s t behaviour and r i s k - t a k i n g i n the present experiments would o f f e r some e m p i r i c a l support f o r the view t h a t gambling i s u n r e l a t e d to t r u s t . Analysis. Chi-Square A n a l y s i s . 58 Experiment I I I Subjeats. S u b j e c t s i n Experiment I I I were drawn from the respondents to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e which was employed i n Experiments I and I I . ( I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the f i r s t two experiments were requested to r e t u r n m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s along w i t h t h e i r names and telephone numbers. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was requested i n order to p r o v i d e r e s u l t s of the experiment to s u b j e c t s , to inform them whether or not they had won the p r i z e , and t o complete Experiment I I I . ) Three attempts were made to c o n t a c t by phone the top t h i r d and bottom t h i r d s c o r e r s on the ITS from Experiments I and I I . (This t a c t i c r e p l i c a t e d the procedure employed by Wright e t a l . [1975] i n r e c r u i t i n g t h e i r s u b j e c t s . ) The t o t a l s u b j e c t pool c o n s i s t e d of 158 female students a t the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. One hundred and seventeen s u b j e c t s were s u c c e s s f u l l y reached by phone and i n c l u d e d i n the p r e s e n t study. Procedure. R e p l i c a t i n g the procedure of Wright e t a l . , s u b j e c t s were phoned by a female c o n f e d e r a t e . The confeder-ate asked each person to be a s u b j e c t i n a psychology experiment. The words used by the confederate were (.approximately) : " H e l l o . Is t h i s ? I'm c a l l i n g to f i n d out whether you can be a s u b j e c t i n a 59 psychology experiment a t the U n i v e r s i t y . " The t r u s t measures, as used i n the study of Wright e t a l . , were the number and type of q u e s t i o n s asked by s u b j e c t s f o r more d e t a i l s about the experiment. S u b j e c t s ' responses were tape recorded f o r l a t e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by an independent judge i n t o the c a t e g o r i e s developed by Wright e t a l . (1975). Any.questions asked by s u b j e c t s were answered, as f a r as p r a c t i c a b l e , a c c o r d i n g to a p r e -arranged sheet of p o s s i b l e q u e s t i o n s and t h e i r answers. A f t e r s u b j e c t s had f i n i s h e d a s k i n g q u e s t i o n s , s u b j e c t s were asked whether they were t a k i n g or had taken a psychology course. Subje c t s who had agreed to come f o r an experiment were then t o l d by the c o n f e d e r a t e t h a t she had made a mis-take. The confederate s a i d : Oh, no! I'm s o r r y . You don't have to come f o r the experiment a f t e r / a l l . I j u s t r e a l i z e d t h a t I have got enough women and I should.have been c a l l i n g men. Thanks anyway. Subjects were l a t e r d e - b r i e f e d about the d e c e p t i o n when they were mailed an e x p l a n a t i o n and b r i e f summary of the r e s u l t s of Experiments I and I I . ..Measures. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t from the m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n Experiments I and II the experimenter had a l r e a d y o b tained s u b j e c t s ' ITS scores and c o u l d c l a s s i f y 60 s u b j e c t s i n t o high and low t r u s t e r s (top and bottom t h i r d ITS s c o r e r s ) as had been done i n Wright e t a l (1975). From the telephone c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h s u b j e c t s , the f o l l o w i n g measures were ob t a i n e d : a. The number of questions asked by s u b j e c t s i n response to ,the confederate's request t h a t the person be a s u b j e c t i n a psychology experiment. b. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n s asked by s u b j e c t s . An independent judge c l a s s i f i e d s u b j e c t s ' q u e s t i o n s as l o g i s t i c a l ("What time should I come?", "Where w i l l the experiment be?", "Could you repeat the i n s t r u c t i o n s ? " , e t c . ) , s u s p i c i o u s ("What k i n d of experiment i s i t ? " , "Who are you?", "Who's the experimenter?", e t c . ) , and, other ("May I b r i n g a f r i e n d ? " , e t c . ) . A complete l i s t of the questions w i t h i n each category as i t appeared on the code sheets used by Wright (Note 4) i s shown i n Appendix D. c. Whether s u b j e c t s were, or had p r e v i o u s l y been, e n r o l l e d i n a psychology course. Since s u b j e c t s had p r e v i o u s l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Experiment I or I I , the experimenter had the s u b j e c t s ' completed data from these experiments. B r i e f l y , these a d d i t i o n a l measures i n c l u d e d : 61 d . S u b j e c t s ' t r u s t b e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t I o r I I as r e c o r d e d on a dichotomous s c a l e o f t r u s t i n g o r d i s t r u s t i n g . e. S u b j e c t s ' r i s k r a t i n g o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n i n E x p e r i m e n t I o r I I as o b t a i n e d from a f i v e p o i n t s c a l e . f . S u b j e c t s ' o p e n - e n d e d r e s p o n s e s about t h e i r m o t i v e s f o r b e h a v i o u r i n E x p e r i m e n t s I o r I I . g . S u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o t h e L i b r a r y S e c u r i t y Q u e s t i o n -n a i r e (Appendix A) i n c l u d i n g answers t o t h e q u e s t i o n s about h a v i n g b e l o n g i n g s s t o l e n i n the l i b r a r y , l e a v i n g p o s s e s s i o n s u n a t t e n d e d i n t h e c a r r e l s , t h e n e c e s s i t y o f l i b r a r y s e c u r i t y , t h e need f o r l o c k e r s i n the washroom and s u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e o f c a s h o r l o t t e r y t i c k e t s i f s e l e c t e d t o r e c e i v e a p r i z e . h . S u b j e c t s ' s c o r e s on t h e I T S . Hypotheses and Analyses Hypothesis 1. H i g h t r u s t e r s w i l l ask s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer q u e s t i o n s than low t r u s t e r s . Rationale. W r i g h t e t a l . (1975) r e p o r t s u c c e s s i n showing t h a t the ITS p r e d i c t e d b e h a v i o u r on t h e t r u s t m e a s u r e , number o f q u e s t i o n s a s k e d , i n the u n o b t r u s i v e e x p e r i m e n t a l 62 s i t u a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e i r study. High t r u s t e r s were o p e r a t i o n a l l y d e f i n e d as persons comprising the top t h i r d of the ITS d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores o b t a i n e d by undergraduates and low t r u s t e r s were persons comprising the bottom t h i r d o f the ITS d i s t r i b u t i o n . Experiment I I I was p a t t e r n e d as c l o s e l y as p o s s i b l e upon the procedure of Wright e t a l . Because the s u b j e c t groups and the procedures of the two s t u d i e s are s i m i l a r , i t i s expected t h a t Hypothesis 1 w i l l be v e r i f i e d and t h a t the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l v a l i d a t e the ITS once again. The t r u s t behaviours of s u b j e c t s i n Experiment I I I w i l l be examined i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t p e r-formance i n Experiment I or I I as an i n d i c a t i o n of b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y . Analysis. C h i Square A n a l y s i s . Hypothesis 2. High t r u s t e r s w i l l ask s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s than low t r u s t e r s . Rationale. The number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked was the second t r u s t measure employed i n 63 Wright e t a l . I t i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the other measure i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h e i r paper. I t i s reasonable to expect t h a t the ITS w i l l p r e d i c t behaviour i n terms of the number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s a person asks about a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n and thereby v a l i d a t e the R o t t e r s c a l e and co n f i r m the f i n d i n g s of Wright e t a l . Analysis. Chi Square A n a l y s i s . Hypothesis 3a. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the . t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I ( l e a v i n g belongings unattended on a bench i n the washroom) and the number of q u e s t i o n s asked. Hypothesis 3b. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I ( l e a v i n g belongings unattended on a bench i n the washroom) and the number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked. Hypothesis 4a.. There will,; be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I I (borrowing books f o r a stranger) and the number o f ques t i o n s asked. Hypothesis 4b. There w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I I (borrowing books f o r a stranger) and the number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked. 64 Rationale. T r u s t i s commonly thought of as a d i s p o s i t i o n w i t h b e h a v i o u r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . D i s p o s i t i o n s are expected to demonstrate c o n s i s t e n c y and a i d i n p r e d i c t i o n of a person's a c t i o n s . As these hypotheses s t a t e , there are f o u r o p p o r t u n i t i e s to t e s t the b e l i e f t h a t t r u s t behaviour i n one s i t u a t i o n w i l l be r e l a t e d . to behaviour i n another s i t u a t i o n . In the case of the experimental t r u s t measures, s u b j e c t s w i l l be p r o v i d i n g the experimenter w i t h data i n two s i t u a t i o n s (Experiment I or I I and Experiment I I I ) . I t i s expected t h a t because most people w i l l behave c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n s , there w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s of t r u s t behaviours i n the v a r i o u s experimental s i t u a t i o n s . Analysis. P o i n t - b i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n s . A Study to Validate the Experimental Measures I t was necessary to show t h a t the three experimental t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s were indeed s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o t r u s t . To do so, a group of independent judges, who were n e v e r t h e l e s s comparable to s u b j e c t s i n the o r i g i n a l sample 65 (also undergraduates a t t e n d i n g a nearby u n i v e r s i t y ) , were asked to r a t e 10 s i t u a t i o n s ( i n c l u d i n g the experimental ones) f o r degree of t r u s t involvement. (Beforehand, i t was thought t h a t 7 of the 10 s i t u a t i o n s were i n some way r e l a t e d t o t r u s t and 3 s i t u a t i o n s were not.) The t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s employed i n the th r e e experiments were to v a r i o u s degrees i n t u i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t r u s t , but t h i s had not been e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated. The v a l i d a t i n g study was designed t o p r o v i d e such e m p i r i c a l support. S i x t y - n i n e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia under-graduates were presented,with a l i s t of 10 s i t u a t i o n s , 3 of these being the experimental ones. (See Table 1.) Subject s were asked t o r a t e the s i t u a t i o n s on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e a c c o r d i n g to how much they agreed t h a t the s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e d t r u s t . The s c a l e was l a b e l l e d a c c o r d i n g l y : (1). S t r o n g l y agree (that i t does)i (2) M i l d l y agree, (3) Agree and d i s a g r e e e q u a l l y , (4) M i l d l y d i s a g r e e and, (.5) S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e . Table 1 shows the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each of the 10 s i t u a t i o n s . When the means of the three experimental t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s were compared.to the mid-p o i n t (3) of the s c a l e , a l l were r a t e d to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the mid-point i n the d i r e c t i o n of t r u s t (Table 2). 66 The three experimental t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s were r a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y i n terms of the amount of t r u s t each s i t u a t i o n was judged to show. In Table 3 , the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of judges' r a t i n g s appears. I t can be seen t h a t Item 4 (Experiment I) and Item 9 (Experiment II) are unambiguously p e r c e i v e d as t r u s t - i n v o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Item 3 (Experiment III) obtained a much weaker endorsement as a s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v i n g t r u s t . The importance o f . t h e s e t r u s t r a t i n g s by the v a l i d a t i n g group a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia on the i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s of the r i s k and t r u s t behaviour r e s u l t s which f o l l o w w i l l J b e examined i n the D i s c u s s i o n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study serve as an important, independent v a l i d a t i o n of the a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the e x p e r i -mental measures of t r u s t i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the p r e s e n t experiments. Observations From the Three Trust Experiments. The p a r a l l e l method arid hypotheses of the f i r s t two experiments w i l l i n d i c a t e how the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour g e n e r a l i z e s i n two d i f f e r e n t r e a l - l i f e s i t u a t i o n s . I f the r e s u l t s of Experiment I I and Experiment I are mutually s u p p o r t i v e , f a r g r e a t e r co n f i d e n c e can be p l a c e d i n the f i n d i n g s . Support found f o r the conceptual model of t r u s t w i l l encourage f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h along these l i n e s . 67 Table 1 The Means and Standard Deviations of Trust Ratings Assigned To Ten Behaviours by a Group of Independent Judges aat the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia S i t u a t i o n M S.D. 1. You f o l l o w a bus d r i v e r ' s d i r e c t i o n s 2.09 .85 about where to f i n d an address i n a strange c i t y . 2. You take medicine as d i r e c t e d by a 1.51 .83 p h y s i c i a n . 3. You are phoned to be a subject i n a 2.64 1.15 psychology experiment and you don't ask questions about i t . 4. You leave your books and coat on a 1.96 .93 bench i n the l i b r a r y washroom while i n a t o i l e t c u b i c l e . 5. A person knocks on your door and asks 1.68 .80 to use your telephone. You.decide to l e t them. 6. You arrange to meet a f r i e n d i n 2.72 1.07 the l i b r a r y . 7. You type an essay f o r a f r i e n d . 3.55 1.20 8. You leave your b i c y c l e unlocked while 1.93 .85 buying some milk at the s t o r e . 9. You agree to take some a r t books out 1.52 .90 f o r a stranger on your l i b r a r y card. 10. You hand i n a questionnaire f o r an 3.03 1.10 experiment which you have promised to complete. Note: A low r a t i n g i n d i c a t e s that the judge agreed t h a t the s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e d t r u s t . a n = 69 i n each case Table 2 t^-tests Showing the D i f f e r e n c e s i n Means Between the Mid-Point And Three Experimental Trust Measures (Based Upon the Ratings Of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia V a l i d a t i n g J u d g e s ) a Comparison M S.D. t_ df S i t u a t i o n 3 2.64 1.15 vs 2.61? 136 Mid-point 3 0 S i t u a t i o n 4 1.96 .93 vs 9.34* 136 Mid-Point 3 0 S i t u a t i o n 9 1.52 .90 vs 7.13.79* 136 Mid-Point 3 0 Note: S i t u a t i o n 3 involved the t r u s t measure upon which Experiment I I I was based. S i t u a t i o n 4 involved the t r u s t measure upon which Experiment I was based. S i t u a t i o n 9 i n v o l v e d the t r u s t measure upon which Experiment I I was based. c l i i = 69 f o r each comparison * p_<= .01 69 Table 3 A Frequency Table Showing the D i f f e r e n c e s i n Rating Assignments For the Three Experimental Trust S i t u a t i o n s Experimental Trust S i t u a t i o n Assigned Rating* 1 2 3 4 Item 3 (Being phoned to by a subject i n a psychology e x p e r i - 14 16 24 11 4 ment--Experiment I I I ) Item 4 (Leaving belongings on a washroom bench unattended-- 23 33 7 5 1 Experiment I) Item 9 (Taking a r t books out on your l i b r a r y card f o r a 45 17 3 1 3 stranger--Experiment I I ) Note: A low r a t i n g i n d i c a t e s that the judge agreed that the s i t u a t i o n i n v o l v e d t r u s t . 70 Experiment I I I w i l l p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n of i n t r a -s u b j e c t b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n t r u s t a c t i o n s s i n c e the experimenter w i l l have data of s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t behaviour i n e i t h e r Experiment I or II as w e l l ' a s t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I I I . A t e s t of b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n d i f f e r e n t t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s has h i t h e r t o not been r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e of t r u s t r e s e a r c h . F i n a l l y , from the three experiments, i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to observe how w e l l the ITS p r e d i c t s behaviour i n d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . I t may be the case t h a t ITS p r e d i c t i o n of behaviour i s b e t t e r i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s as a p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n of how c l o s e l y i n d i v i d u a l ITS items r e l a t e to the p a r t i c u l a r t r u s t behaviour i n v e s t i g a t e d . A l s o , i t may be found t h a t the ITS y i e l d s good b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t i o n only f o r extreme s c o r e r s and not f o r the middle range. Hence, the three s t u d i e s are complementary. Together these experiments i n c r e a s e the s t a t u s of any s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s which may be found beyond t h a t of "one-shot" s t u d i e s . The r e s u l t s which f o l l o w i n d i c a t e how w e l l these s t u d i e s f u l f i l l e d t h e i r aims. 71 ResuIts The r e s u l t s of the t h r e e experiments can be e v a l u a t e d on two l e v e l s . F i r s t , do these experiments measure what they were designed to measure? Second,'what are the outcomes of the major hypotheses and what s u b s i d i a r y f i n d i n g s are there? R e s u l t s r e l a t i n g to the procedure and d e s i g n are d i s -cussed f o r a l l three experiments f o l l o w e d i n a second s e c t i o n by the s u b s t a n t i v e r e s u l t s . Evaluation of the Experimental Procedures in Experiments I, II, and I I I Subjects ' reasons for t h e i r behaviour. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d from the d i s c u s s i o n of the method of Experiments I and II t h a t a f t e r the experimenter had recorded the s u b j e c t s ' behaviour on the dependent measure, s u b j e c t s were asked to account f o r t h e i r t r u s t behaviour (e.g., why d i d you agree 16 to take out t h i s book f o r me?). The purpose behind t h e experimenter's q u e s t i o n was to examine s u b j e c t s ' own explan-a t i o n s f o r t h e i r t r u s t behaviour. Krebs (197 7) claims t h a t o b t a i n i n g s u b j e c t s ' i n t r o -s p e c t i o n s and motives about t h e i r behaviour e s t a b l i s h e s the " c o g n i t i v e - m o t i v a t i o n a l " meaning of t h e i r a c t i o n s . 72 A f t e r the experiments were completed, three judges c l a s s i f i e d s u b j e c t s ' reasons as r e l a t e d or u n r e l a t e d to t r u s t (Appendix C) i n the manner d e s c r i b e d i n the Method. In Experiment I, approximately 7 0% of s u b j e c t s were c l a s s i f i e d as g i v i n g t r u s t - r e l a t e d reasons f o r t h e i r behaviour. (In the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n 59% o f s u b j e c t s gave t r u s t - r e l a t e d reasons, while i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n 80% gave t r u s t - r e l a t e d r e a s o n s ) . In Experiment I I , 9 0% of s u b j e c t s were judged to have giv e n t r u s t - r e l a t e d reasons f o r t h e i r a c t i o n s . (In the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n , 85% of s u b j e c t s gave t r u s t - r e l a t e d reasons and i n the h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n , 9 5% had given t u r s t - r e l a t e d reasons.) At the o u t s e t of the study, i t was a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t data of the sub-sample of s u b j e c t s who r e p o r t e d reasons f o r t h e i r behaviour judged to be r e l a t e d to t r u s t would be analyzed s e p a r a t e l y . However, the d i r e c t i o n and r e s u l t s of t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e i n a l l cases were the same f o r the sub-sample as f o r the e n t i r e sample; thus, separate analyses w i l l not be r e p o r t e d f o r the sub-sample. The o t h e r means of c o n f i r m i n g t h a t t r u s t was the primary v a r i a b l e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n these experiments was p r o v i d e d by the v a l i d a t i n g study conducted at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia which was d e s c r i b e d p r e v i o u s l y . I t w i l l 73 r e c a l l e d t h a t a l l three experimental s i t u a t i o n s were r a t e d i n the t r u s t d i r e c t i o n and were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the mid-point of the f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e (Table 2). The order of the judges', r a t i n g s f o r the experimental s i t u a t i o n s from most c l e a r l y i n v o l v i n g t r u s t to l e s s c l e a r l y i n v o l v i n g t r u s t was Experiment II ( l i b r a r y books M = 1.52), Experiment I (washroom bench., M = 1.96) , and Experiment I I I (telephone c a l l , M = 2.64) . Hence, the r e s u l t s of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia v a l i d a t i n g study support the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the three experimental s i t u a t i o n s d i d , indeed, i n v o l v e t r u s t , Experiments I and II perhaps more c l e a r l y than Experiment I I I . P a r t i o i - p a t i o n rate. The p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e i n these experiments was s u f f i c i e n t l y high to presume t h a t the e f f e c t of a s e l f - s e l e c t i o n b i a s i n the s u b j e c t groups was of l i t t l e or no consequence. In the washroom study, a t o t a l of e i g h t people (< 6%) r e f u s e d to p a r t i c i p a t e when they were f i r s t approached by the experimenter ( a f t e r the b e h a v i o u r a l measure of t r u s t had been assessed):. Of these e i g h t people, h a l f were b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g and the other h a l f were b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i s t r u s t i n g . In the l i b r a r y c a r d study, only two s u b j e c t s (< 2%) r e f u s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Seven other l i b r a r y 74 users s a i d t h a t they had l e f t t h e i r l i b r a r y cards at home or d i d not have cards and c o u l d not take out the book(s) f o r t h e experimenter. Since such an excuse c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be a " p o l i t e " r e f u s a l and a c t u a l l y a d i s t r u s t i n g response, the experimenter questioned these s u b j e c t s f u r t h e r . Two of the seven s u b j e c t s admitted t h a t they had made up t h i s excuse i n order t o r e f u s e the request. The oth e r f i v e s u b j e c t s maintained t h a t they had indeed l e f t t h e i r cards a t home o r were not students or had l o s t t h e i r c a r d s . The two s u b j e c t s who admitted t o being u n t r u t h f u l about t h e i r l i b r a r y c a r d were l a b e l l e d " d i s t r u s t i n g " and i n c l u d e d i n the study, while the other f i v e s u b j e c t s were not. In Experiment I I I , data on approximately 75% of the o r i g i n a l l i s t of top and bottom ITS s c o r i n g s u b j e c t s . f r o m Experiments I and I I were s u c c e s s f u l l y c o ntacted over the telephone by the con f e d e r a t e . Return rate of questionnaires. The r e t u r n r a t e of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was very high when compared to t y p i c a l m a i l response r a t e s . The average r a t e f o r both experiments was over 90%. That i s , only 21 people out of 237 who i n i t i a l l y took the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s home f a i l e d to r e t u r n them. Such a high r a t e g i v e s c o n f i d e n c e t h a t the data obtained were not a p p r e c i a b l y a f f e c t e d by extraneous s e l e c t i o n f a c t o r s such as vo l u n t e e r i s m . Reasons f o r the high r a t e of r e t u r n of the 75 q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n . Demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I n i t i a l l y , t h e r e had been some c o n c e r n t h a t the a s k i n g o f t h e m o t i v e q u e s t i o n ( e . g . , "Why d i d you agree t o t a k e t h e s e books o u t f o r me?") would a c t as a s u b t l e demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and a f f e c t s u b j e c t s ' r i s k a s s e s s m e n t s . By s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a l t e r i n g t h e o r d e r o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , i t c o u l d be s t a t i s t i c a l l y d e t e r m i n e d whether s u b j e c t s ' r e s p o n s e s t o one q u e s t i o n a f f e c t e d r e s p o n s e s t o the o t h e r . In h a l f o f t h e low r i s k c o n d i t i o n s o f b o t h E x p e r i m e n t s I and I I , the r i s k assessment q u e s t i o n was posed b e f o r e t h e m o t i v a t i o n q u e s t i o n and i n t h e o t h e r h a l f o f t h e low r i s k c o n d i t i o n , t h e o r d e r o f the q u e s t i o n s was r e v e r s e d . T a b l e s 4 and 5 i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t f o r o r d e r when t e s t e d w i t h t w o - t a i l e d t - t e s t s . On t h e s t r e n g t h o f the r e s u l t s , d a t a were c o l l a p s e d o v e r o r d e r i n a l l s u b j e c t a n a l y s e s . The r e l i a b i l i t y of the ITS. The f i n a l m a t t e r t o be t a k e n up i n t h i s s e c t i o n o f r e s u l t s i s the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e . I t was n o t p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n c e r t a i n t y p e s o f r e l i a b i l i t y (such a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y ) f o r the s c a l e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t u d y . The e x p e r i m e n t s took p l a c e towards t h e end o f t h e academic y e a r a n d , g i v e n the m o b i l i t y o f u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s , an adequate r e s p o n s e 76 Table 4 A Test f o r the E f f e c t of Order on Risk Assessment Ratings i n Experiment I Order M SD t_ df Two-tailed p Risk-Motive 2.22 Low Risk Motive-Risk 2.12 Risk-Motive High Risk Motive-Risk .84 .43 54 n.s. .91 2.53 1.05 1.35 58 n.s. 2.92 1.15 Table 5 A Test f o r the E f f e c t o f Order on Risk Assessment Ratings i n Experiment I I Order M SD I df Two-tailed p Risk-Motive 2.93 .85 Low Risk .75 58 n.s. Motive-Risk 2.75 .88 Risk-Motive 3.02 .88 High Risk 1.62 59 n.s. Motive-Risk 3.37 .84 78 r a t e was not deemed o b t a i n a b l e . R o t t e r (19 67) d i d g i v e the range of t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y as between .56 and .68 when he f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d the s c a l e . A s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t (with the Spearman-Brown c o r r e c t i o n ) was c a l c u l a t e d from the data i n the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o t e s t the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the s c a l e . Here i t was found t h a t the p r e s e n t sample of experimental s u b j e c t s y i e l d e d a - s p l i t - h a l f c o e f f i c i e n t of +.96, which i s a s i g n i f i c a n t (p < .01) and a c c e p t a b l e l e v e l . As a f u r t h e r t e s t of r e l i a b i l i t y , the ITS was admin-i s t e r e d to a sample of Canadian u n i v e r s i t y female under-graduates at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Table 6 shows the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r both the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia group and the experimental s u b j e c t s along w i t h s i m i l a r s t a t i s t i c s r e p o r t e d by R o t t e r (Note 5), and Wright (Note 6). R e s u l t s of a t - t e s t d i s p l a y e d i n Table 7, between the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the d i s s e r t a t i o n study group ITS scores showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , t ( 2 0 3 ) = .55, n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . I t i s concluded from the non-s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a and the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia samples t h a t these two groups were p r o v i d i n g r e l a t i v e l y , and reasonably, c o n s i s t e n t scores on the t e s t . 79 Table 6 A Summary of Means and Standard Deviations f o r the Int e r p e r s o n a l Trust Scale Found i n the Present I n v e s t i g a t i o n , a U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Comparison Group, the Study o f Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (1975)b, and by RotterC M SD Rotter (Sample c o l l e c t e d i n 1974) 67.20 10.60 756 Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (Sample c o l l e c t e d i n 1973) 65.15 9.20 322 Charlesworth D i s s e r -t a t i o n (Sample c o l l e c t e d i n 1978) 72.14 9.90 216 U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia V a l i d a t i n g Study (Sample c o l l e c t e d i n 1979) 71.17 10.02 59 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s are f o r groups of female u n i v e r s i t y students. In t h e i r paper, the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the ITS were reported f o r high and low t r u s t e r s but not f o r the e n t i r e sample group t a k i n g the ITS. According to Wright (Note 6 ) , the mean and standard d e v i a t i o n f o r the e n t i r e group was the same as that reported i n an a r t i c l e by Wright and Sharp (1979). The mean and standard d e v i a t i o n reported here was obtained from Rotter (Note 7). 80 Table 7 S i g n i f i c a n c e Tests Between Means ITS Scores Derived from D i f f e r e n t Studies Comparison t_ df Two-tailed Charlesworth vs. Wright, 8.39 536 < .01 Maggied, and Palmer Rotter vs. Wright, Maggied, and Palmer 3 , 1 6 7 5 6 < ' 0 1 Rotter vs. Charlesworth 6.04 916 < .01 Charlesworth vs. Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia V a l i d a t i o n Sample .55 203 n.s. 81 Table 7 a l s o shows the m u l t i p l e comparison of the means of ITS scores i n sample groups obtained by R o t t e r from a sample t e s t e d i n 1974 (Mote 5)., Wright e t a l . (Note 6), and Charlesworth (sample t e s t e d i n February to A p r i l 197 8). M u l t i p l e t - t e s t s were performed. I t was found t h a t the t hree comparisons of mean ITS scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r the three sample groups even with o c a t the .01, l e v e l to p r o v i d e a very c o n s e r v a t i v e t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The importance of these s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s shown i n Table 7 w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the next chapter. From the f o r e g o i n g assessment of the procedures and measures, no evidence was found to c a l l the methodology i n t o q u e s t i o n . Experiment I The r e s u l t s which bear d i r e c t l y on the major e x p e r i -mental hypotheses w i l l be s t a t e d f i r s t . Other f i n d i n g s of importance and i n t e r e s t w i l l f o l l o w . The t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of a l l r e s u l t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n a l a t e r chapter. The Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The dichotomous t r u s t measure ( l e a v i n g p o s s e s s i o n s unattended on the bench i n the washroom or 82 t a k i n g p o s s e s s i o n s i n t o a t o i l e t c u b i c l e ) was not s i g n i f i c -a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s u b j e c t s ' ITS s c o r e s . Hence, Hypo-^ t h e s i s 1 was not supported. The p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I and s u b j e c t s ' ITS scores showed the low and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n o f +.10. When each ITS item was c o r r e l a t e d with the experimental t r u s t behaviour, no i n d i v i d u a l ITS item showed a s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h the t r u s t behaviour (Appendix E ) . Hypothesis 2. By means of a Chi-square t e s t , i t was shown t h a t there was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more t r u s t behaviour i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n (n = 29) than i n the h i g h r i s k 2 c o n d i t i o n (n = 9) X C D = 13.42, p < .01. These r e s u l t s supported Hypothesis 2. The experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n of r i s k a f f e c t e d the raterof t r u s t behaviour over the two r i s k c o n d i t i o n s . Hypothesis S. Table 8 d i s p l a y s the c o r r e l a t i o n s between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour f o r the low and high r i s k c o n d i t i o n . Both c o r r e l a t i o n s reached c o n v e n t i o n a l l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The o v e r a l l p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n (with r i s k l e v e l s c o l l a p s e d ) was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t , r n H = 39, n = 116. 83 Table 8 P o i n t - B i s e r i a l Correlations Showing the Relationship Between Risk Assess-ment and Trust Behaviour i n the Low Risk, and High Risk Conditions of Experiment I Correlation Between Risk Assessment and Trust Behaviour Low Risk .23 56 < . 05 High Risk .47 60 < .05 84 There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the r i s k a s s e s s -ments made by t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e i n the r i s k a s s e s s -ments of t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n approached s i g n i f i c a n c e (Table 9). The mean r i s k assessment of d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n the low r i s k c o n d i t i o n was 2.36, which was g r e a t e r than the mean r i s k r a t i n g f o r t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s (-1.96). T h i s d i f f e r e n c e 17 was not s i g n i f i c a n t , it(54) = 1.76, n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . The c orresponding r i s k assessments f o r t r u s t i n g and d i s -t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n the high r i s k c o n d i t i o n were 1.56 and 2.93, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was s i g n i f i c a n t , t(58) = 3.80, p < .01, two t a i l e d . Hypothesis 4. The type of p r i z e (cash o r l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ) e l e c t e d by s u b j e c t s was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d 2 to t h e i r t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I, X (1) = .005, n.s. Of the t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n Experiment I, 2 0 e l e c t e d the cash p r i z e and 14 chose the l o t t e r y t i c k e t s . 'Two-tailed t - t e s t s were performed throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n even though s p e c i f i c p r e d i c t i o n s about the d i r e c t i o n of t h e . r e s u l t s ;(and, hence, o n e - t a i l e d t e s t s ) c o u l d be made. The t w o - t a i l e d t e s t has the advantage of being a more c o n s e r v a t i v e t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e . More co n f i d e n c e can be giv e n t o s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d by t h i s method than shown i n o n e - t a i l e d t e s t s . 85 Table 9 t - t e s t s of the D i f f e r e n c e s i n Risk Assessments Made by B e h a v i o u r a l l y T r u s t i n g and D i s t r u s t i n g Subjects i n Low and High Risk Conditions For Experiment I Risk Assessment n M SD t df Two-tailed p Low Risk T r u s t i n g 27 1.96 .76 1.76 54 < .10 D i s t r u s t i n g 29 2.36 .93 High Risk T r u s t i n g 9 1.56 .53 3.80 58 < .01 D i s t r u s t i n g 51 2.93 1.06 86 Other Findings The q u e s t i o n n a i r e which accompanied the ITS i n c l u d e d three q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviours i n the l i b r a r y . Chi-square analyses of responses t o the three q u e s t i o n s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , one q u e s t i o n asked whether s u b j e c t s ' belongings had been p r e v i o u s l y s t o l e n from the l i b r a r y , X \ l ) = 1.66, n.s.; another q u e s t i o n asked whether s u b j e c t s would leave t h e i r belongings unattended i n the c a r r e l , 2 X . (1) = .49, n.s.; and the t h i r d q u e s t i o n d e a l t w i t h whether or not s u b j e c t s f e l t l o c k e r s should be i n s t a l l e d i n the washrooms (presumably to secure belongings w h i l e s u b j e c t s 2 were out of view), X - (1) = .06, n.s. A step-wise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n equation was d e r i v e d f o r t r u s t behaviour to show the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of v a r i o u s independent v a r i a b l e s (and the antecedent v a r i a b l e , ITS score) i n p r e d i c t i n g the b e h a v i o u r a l c r i t e r i o n . The s e l e c t i o n of p r e d i c t o r s was on the b a s i s of s i g n i f i c a n t F v a l u e s . The order of p r e d i c t o r v a r i a n c e was as shown i n Table 10 wi t h the best p r e d i c t o r , r i s k assessment, accounting f o r over 14% of the v a r i a n c e . The ITS was the t h i r d best p r e d i c t o r . I t reduced e r r o r v a r i a n c e by only 1% c o n d i t i o n a l 87 Table 10 M u l t i p l e Regression C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g Trust Behaviour i n Experiment I from ITS Scores, Risk Assessment and Having Belongings P r e v i o u s l y S t o l e n 2 2 R_ (Culminative Percen- R. Change::: V a r i a b l e tage of Variance Accounted (Change i n V a r i -f o r ) ance Accounted f o r ) Risk Assessment .144 .144 S t o l e n * .177 .033 ITS .183 .006 * The wording of the question upon which t h i s v a r i a b l e i s based was: UHave you ever had personal belongings s t o l e n i n the L i b r a r y ? " 88 upon the e f f e c t s o f the two preceding p r e d i c t o r s . Some of the p r e d i c t o r s s e l e c t e d . b y SPSS programming were not i n c l u d e d i n the t a b l e i f the incremental c o n t r i b u t i o n o f these p r e d i c t o r s was l e s s than 1%. of the accounted v a r i a n c e . Experiment II The r e s u l t s of Experiment I I are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h those o f Experiment I even though the t r u s t measures were d i f f e r -ent. Hence, the s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s found i n these experiments supports the n o t i o n t h a t r e s u l t s can be g e n e r a l i z e d t o ot h e r t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s and t h a t r e a l , and not f o r t u i t o u s , a s s o c i a t i o n s have been found. The Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n between the o v e r a l l ITS scores and the t r u s t behaviour measured i n Experiment I I was .06, which was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Hence, the f i r s t . h y p o t h e s i s i s not supported. Hypothesis 2. The r e s u l t s support the hypothesis t h a t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r r a t e of b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t i n the low r i s k (n = 44) than the high r i s k (n = 32) c o n d i t i o n , (1) = 4.78, p < .05. As was the case i n Experiment I, the r i s k m a n i p u l a t i o n was s u c c e s s f u l i n a f f e c t i n g t r u s t behaviour. 89 Hypothesis 3. There were s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s found between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour i n the low (.51) and h i g h (44) r i s k c o n d i t i o n s . When r i s k c o n d i t i o n s were c o l l a p s e d , the o v e r a l l p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour was .51 ( s i g n . , n = 121). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Table 11 shows t h a t i n the low and high r i s k c o n d i t i o n s , the r i s k assessments of b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g and d i s -t r u s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . In these experiments i t was not p o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . For example, i t was not shown whether b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s made lower r i s k assessments or people making low r i s k assessments behaved t r u s t i n g l y . Hypothesis 4. In Experiment IT, as was the case i n Experiment I, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the type o f p r i z e s e l e c t e d by b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s , (1) = 1.23, n.s. Hence, Hypothesis 4 was not supported. F o r t y - f i v e b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s chose the cash p r i z e and 22 s u b j e c t s chose the l o t t e r y t i c k e t s . 90 Table 11 t - t e s t s o f the D i f f e r e n c e s i n Risk. Assessments made by B e h a v i o u r a l l y T r u s t i n g and D i s t r u s t i n g Subjects i n Low and High Risk Conditions (Experiment I I ) Risk Assessment n M7 SD t df Two-tailed p Low Risk T r u s t i n g 44 2.57 .72 4.57 58 < .01 D i s t r u s t i n g 16 3.56 .81 High Risk T r u s t i n g 32 2.83 .72 4.08 59 < .01 D i s t r u s t i n g 29 3.62 .83 91 Other Findings S u b j e c t s ' responses on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e data showed a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n t o — t h a t r e p o r t e d i n Experiment I. In r e s -ponse to the q u e s t i o n about having belongings p r e v i o u s l y s t o l e n i n the l i b r a r y ( i . e . , . Have you ever had any p e r s o n a l belongings s t o l e n w h i l e i n the L i b r a r y ? ) , no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n was found i n the r e p o r t e d frequency between 2 b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s , }C (1) = 1.00, n.s. Chi-square analyses showed no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r response to the q u e s t i o n , " . . . would ..you leave your books and coat i n the c a r r e l s w h ile you were away from the l i b r a r y d u r i n g 2 lunch-hour or w h i l e a t t e n d i n g a c l a s s ? " , "X- (1) = .48, n.s. Nor was t h e r e ^ a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r response to the q u e s t i o n about i n s t a l l i n g l o c k e r s i n the washroom ( i . e . , Should l o c k e r s be p r o v i d e d i n the L i b r a r y washrooms t o l e a v e coats, and books while u s i n g the t o i l e t c u b i c l e s ? ) . When a step-wise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was per-formed, the b e h a v i o u r a l c r i t e r i o n had two major p r e d i c t o r s . These were i n order of s e l e c t i o n : r i s k assessment and ITS. Table 12 shows t h a t the b e s t p r e d i c t o r , r i s k assessment, accounted f o r 26% of the p r e d i c t a b l e v a r i a n c e i n the 92 Table 12 M u l t i p l e Regression C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g Trust Behaviour i n E x p e r i -ment I I From i t s Scores, Risk Assessments and Subject's Responses To Two Questionnaire Items 2 2 V a r i a b l e — (Culminative Percentage R Change (Change In of Variance Accounted f o r ) Variance Accounted f o r ) Risk Assessment ITS •.'256 .264 .256 .008 93 r e g r e s s i o n equation. The other p r e d i c t o r s e l e c t e d i n the step-wise r e g r e s s i o n procedure made a t r i v i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n (.01) i n the acc o u n t i n g of v a r i a n c e a f t e r the e f f e c t of r i s k assessment was removed. There were other p r e d i c t o r s s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of s i g n i f i c a n t F va l u e s but. as these v a r i a b l e s added l e s s than 1% to the c u l m i n a t i v e percentage of v a r i a n c e , they are not shown i n Table 12 nor d i s c u s s e d here. Experiment I I I Experiment I I I f a i l e d t o r e p l i c a t e the f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d by Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (1975). The Hypotheses Hypothesis 1. The f i n d i n g s of Wright e t a l . (1975) were not supported by the r e s u l t s of Experiment I I I . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found between the means f o r low (M = 2.19) and high (M = 2.33) t r u s t e r s on the t r u s t measure, t o t a l number of questions asked, jt(193) = .42 , n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . Hypothesis 2. R e s u l t s f a i l e d t o r e j e c t the n u l l h y p o t hesis and d i d not support the p u b l i s h e d f i n d i n g s of Wright e t a l . (1975). No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between the means f o r low (M = .93) and h i g h (M = 1.02) 94 t r u s t e r s on the t r u s t index, number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked, t(103) = .44., n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . Hypotheses 3 ay., 3b, 4a, and 4b. No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l -a t i o n s were found between the t r u s t measures i n Experiment I I I and the t r u s t measures i n Experiments .I and II.'';The p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t r u s t measure i n Experiment I and the t o t a l number of que s t i o n s asked and the number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked were .19 and .17, r e s p e c t i v e l y (n = 56, x-n. s.).. The corresponding c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t r u s t measure i n Experiment I I and the two t r u s t measures i n Experiment I I I were .01 and .04, r e s p e c t i v e l y (n = 49, n . s . ) . Other Findings Because there were i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s u b j e c t groups o f Experiment I I I and the Wright e t a l . (1975) study, some s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons were necessary to t e s t f o r p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f these d i f f e r e n c e s on the dependent v a r i a b l e s . One d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t i n Wright e t a l . , a l l s u b j e c t s were t a k i n g a psychology course, w h i l e i n the pres e n t experiment 60 out of 90 s u b j e c t s asked were not e n r o l l e d i n a psychology course. To t e s t f o r the e f f e c t of psychology enrolment on the t r u s t i n d i c e s , t - t e s t s were performed. On the t r u s t index, number of q u e s t i o n s asked, the mean f o r 95 s u b j e c t s who had p r e v i o u s l y taken psychology was 2 . 2 2 q u e s t i o n s (n = 36) and the mean f o r those who had not taken psychology was 2 . 47 q u e s t i o n s (n = 6 0 ) . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t , t ( 9 4 ) = . 6 5 , n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . On the t r u s t index, number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked, the corresponding means were .97 (n = 36) and 1 .08 (n = 6 0 ) . Again, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t , j t J 9 4 ) = . 4 7 , n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . A t - t e s t of the ITS scores of s u b j e c t s i n Experiment I I I who had p r e v i o u s l y taken a psychology course (M = 7 2 . 6 1 ) and those who had not (M_= 7 3 . 3 2 ) showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups, t ( 9 4 ) = . 2 9 , n.s., t w o - t a i l e d . Previous enrolment i n psychology had no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on s u b j e c t s ' agreement to p a r t i c i p a t e in. the experiment, X ^ ( D = - 0 1 , n.s. General Results From the Three Experiments The ITS demonstrated low and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h f i v e items on the m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The p o i n t -b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between the ITS and fo u r o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items were as f o l l o w s : "Have you ever had any p e r s o n a l belongings s t o l e n w h i l e i n the L i b r a r y ? " (r_pk = . 0 1 , n = 2 1 2 ) ; " . . . would you leave your books and coat i n the c a r r e l s w h i l e you were away from the L i b r a r y J 96 d u r i n g lunch-hour or w h i l e a t t e n d i n g a c l a s s ? " Cr ^ = .02, n = 210); "Should l o c k e r s be p r o v i d e d i n the L i b r a r y washrooms to leave c o a t s and books while u s i n g the t o i l e t c u b i c l e s ? " (r_pb. = -.12, n = 210); and, " . . . would you p r e f e r to r e c e i v e cash or l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ? " (•£ b = -11/ n = 206) . The Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n between the ITS and the f i f t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e item concerning the n e c e s s i t y o f l i b r a r y s e c u r i t y ("How necessary to L i b r a r y s e c u r i t y and the p r e v e n t i o n o f t h e f t do you t h i n k the c o n t r o l l e d e x i t i s ? " ) y i e l d e d a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n of -.08 (n = 210). . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n found between s u b j e c t s ' r i s k assessments i n Experiments I and I I and t h e i r ITS scores ( r p b = .05, n = 216). One o f the unique o p p o r t u n i t i e s p r o v i d e d i n these d i s s e r t a t i o n s t u d i e s was to o b t a i n repeated b e h a v i o u r a l measures from s u b j e c t s . T h i s was accomplished by s e l e c t i n g s u b j e c t s f o r Experiment I or I I who had p r e v i o u s l y taken p a r t i n e i t h e r Experiment I or I I . I t was expected t h a t s u b j e c t s o v e r a l l would r e v e a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n t h e i r t r u s t behaviours. Hence, i n f o r m a t i o n about s u b j e c t s o b t a i n e d i n Experiment I I I was added i n a step-wise r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s p r e d i c t i n g the c r i t e r i o n , t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I or I I . Tables 13 and 14 show the r e s u l t s of these r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . I t was found t h a t there was o n l y s l i g h t i n c r e a s e 97 Table 13 M u l t i p l e Regression C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g Trust Behaviour i n Experiment I From ITS Scores, Risk Assessment and the Trust Indices of Experiment I I I 2 2 R (Cumulative Percen- R Change (Change V a r i a b l e tage of Variance Ac- i n Variance Ace: counted f o r ) counted f o r ) Risk Assessment .20 .20 T o t a l Number of Questions .23 .03 Asked ITS \ .25 .02 98 Table 14 M u l t i p l e Regression C o r r e l a t i o n P r e d i c t i n g Trust Behaviour i n Experiment I I From ITS Scores, Risk Assessments and the Trust Indices of Experiment I I I 2 2 R (Culminative Percen- R Change (Change i n tage of Variance Ac- Variance Accounted counted f o r ) f o r ) Risk Assessment .28 .28 I T S .29 .004 Number of Suspicious Questions Asked .29 .002 99 i n the p r e d i c t i o n of the c r i t e r i o n by the i n c l u s i o n of s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t behaviours i n Experiment I I I a f t e r the e f f e c t of the b e s t p r e d i c t o r ( i n both cases, r i s k a s s e s s -ment) was removed. F i n d i n g s which focussed on the refinement of the ITS and subsequent changes i n the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of the s c a l e on the experimental t r u s t measures were a l s o examined. The f i r s t refinement of the ITS was based upon a paper by Chun and Campbell (1974) d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , which showed t h a t the ITS i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l instrument. T h e i r suggestion was t h a t t r u s t s t u d i e s ought t o c o r r e l a t e the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s of the ITS, r a t h e r than the g l o b a l score f o r the s c a l e , w i t h observable t r u s t behaviours. Table 15 shows the r e s u l t s o f the c o r r e l a t i o n o f L t h e ITS f a c t o r s as i s o l a t e d by Chun and Campbell. ( I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the t r u s t behaviours i n Experiment I or.:'-11 and o v e r a l l ITS scores had been .10 and . 06 , r e s p e c t i v e l y V ) From Ta b l e 15 i t w i l l be seen t h a t c o r r e l a t i n g the experimental t r u s t behaviours w i t h the fou r ITS f a c t o r s i s o l a t e d by Chun and Campbell d i d not produce s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . A second method o f ITS refinement was based upon a refinement suggested i n a r e c e n t paper by Wright and Sharp (1979). These r e s e a r c h e r s examined the ITS i n terms of 100 Table 15 P o i n t - B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Showing the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between the ITS Subscales Derived by Chun and Campbell (1974) and the Trust Behaviours i n the Three Experiments Experiment I (Leaving Poss-essions on a Washroom Bench) Experiment I I ( L e t t i n g a stranger use your l i b r a r y card) Experiment I I I (Indices from Wright, Maggied and Palmer) Susp. Quest. T o t a l Quest, Skepticism ,09 .04 .05 .05 E x p l o i t a t i o n ,06 ,03 ,01 ,06 Hypocrisy 13 10 ,04 04 Role Performance ,07 ,08 .09 ,04 116 121 105 105 Note: None of the above c o r r e l a t i o n s are s i g n i f i c a n t . a The c o r r e l a t i o n of the o v e r a l l ITS with the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I had been +.10. The c o r r e l a t i o n of the o v e r a l l ITS with the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I I had been +.06. 101 content and grammatical sex b i a s . They found t h a t even though the q u e s t i o n n a i r e items o f the ITS are expressed by s e x - n e u t r a l r e f e r e n c e s (e.g., "many people", "one", e t c . ) , 12 q u e s t i o n n a i r e items are n e v e r t h e l e s s independently judged to r e f e r t o predominantly male r e f e r e n t s (grammatical sex b i a s ) . A l s o , s p e c i f y i n g the gender of supposedly n e u t r a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e items l e d to d i f f e r e n t responses. Wright and Sharp found t h a t both males and females obtained h i g h e r t r u s t scores on the ITS when items were r e w r i t t e n i n terms o f women (content sex b i a s ) . These i n v e s t i g a t o r s suggested t h a t whenever the ITS i s used to i n v e s t i g a t e t r u s t towards other women (as i t was i n these experiments), e i g h t ITS items which they s a i d d e a l t w i t h "power" ought to be e l i m i n a t e d from the s c a l e . In our s o c i e t y , power p o s i t i o n s are t y p i c a l l y h e l d by males. When women respond to these ITS items, they are r e v e a l i n g t h e i r t r u s t towards men r a t h e r than towards o t h e r women. Fo l l o w i n g upon t h e i r s u g g e s t i o n , new ITS scores were c a l c u l a t e d s u b s t r a c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s on the e i g h t "power" items. The p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n of the r e v i s e d ITS scores w i t h t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I was .10 (n.s.,. n = 105) and .06 i n Experiment I I (n.s., n = 108). The Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n between the r e v i s e d ITS scores and the behaviour measures i n Experiment I I I 102 was .10 (n.s., n = 105) f o r the measure, number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s , and .09 f o r the t o t a l number of ques t i o n s (n.s., n = 105). In the case of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the r e f i n e -ment o f the ITS, e i t h e r by the a l t e r a t i o n s suggested by Chun and Campbell or Wright and Sharp, d i d not l e a d t o an improvement i n the p r e d i c t i o n o f the t r u s t behaviours. 103 Discussion These t h r e e experiments p r o v i d e f o u r areas f o r d i s -c u s s i o n . F i r s t , because these experiments are i n n o v a t i v e and n o v e l means of stu d y i n g r e a l - l i f e t r u s t behaviour, i t i s necessary to show t h a t the manipulations d i d , i n f a c t , e l i c i t t r u s t r a t h e r than some other v a r i a b l e . Furthermore, i t must be shown t h a t the experimental d e s i g n a l l o w s r e s u l t s to be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of t r u s t . Second, s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been found among l e v e l of manipulated r i s k , r i s k assessment, and t r u s t behaviour. I t i s e s p e c i a l l y important t h a t the experimental hypotheses d e f i n i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k and t r u s t were confirmed i n two d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s . P r i o r to these experiments, the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s of these v a r i a b l e s had not been e m p i r i c a l l y examined. R e f e r r i n g t o the co n c e p t u a l model i n F i g u r e 1, i t has now been e m p i r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t two f a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t e d i n the model ( r i s k assessment and l e v e l of r i s k ) are r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviour. Furthermore, a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n has emerged from these experiments t o modify the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d . T h i r d , another important r e s u l t from these three experiments was the c o n s i s t e n t f a i l u r e o f R o t t e r ' s I n t e r -104 p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e to show s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n as p r e d i c t e d with any of the i n v e s t i g a t e d t r u s t measures. These n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s p e r s i s t e d d e s p i t e the a p p l i c a t i o n of two f a c t o r a n a l y t i c refinements on the s c a l e which were suggested i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Chun and Campbell, 1974; Wright and Sharp, 1979). The a b i l i t y of R o t t e r ' s s c a l e to p r o v i d e s i g n i f i c a n t or meaningful behav-i o u r a l p r e d i c t i o n i s c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n . Fourth, t h i s study f a i l e d t o r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s of Wright, e t a l . (1975), and t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n experimental outcome must be e x p l a i n e d . Reasons are proposed f o r the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by Wright e t a l . Because t h e i r study had been thought, to o f f e r important b e h a v i o u r a l v a l i d a t i o n of R o t t e r ' s t r u s t s c a l e , non-r e p l i c a t i o n of t h e i r f i n d i n g s by Experiment I I I i s damaging to the ITS as w e l l as i n d i c a t i v e t h a t t h e i r s may be an un-r e l i a b l e method of measuring b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t . The E f f i c a c y of the Experimental Design There were motives, other than t r u s t , which might be put f o r t h .for s u b j e c t s ' behaviour i n these experiments,;, however, these reasons can be d i s c o u n t e d , i f not d i s m i s s e d , on s e v e r a l grounds. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n Experiment I, one might argue t h a t s u b j e c t s were " t r u s t i n g " because i t was 105 more convenient to leave belongings on a washroom bench or because i t was t h e i r h a b i t t o do so. Furthermore, s u b j e c t s might be thought t o have been m o d e l l i n g another person's behaviour or they might have h e l d the view t h a t temptation ought not be put i n the way of o t h e r s . (These a l t e r n a t i v e motives would have been as r e l e v a n t i n the low r i s k as i n the h i g h r i s k c o n d i t i o n . ) However, s u b j e c t s ' own r e p o r t s about t h e i r behaviour were r e a s s u r i n g ; none of these e x p l a n a t i o n s , when examined, by three judges, appear to be more s a l i e n t i n s u b j e c t s ' decision-making than t r u s t . In Experiment I I , motives such as a l t r u i s m and com-p l i a n c e (with the experimenter's request) c o u l d be advanced to account, f o r the observed experimental behaviour. Once again, judges' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s u b j e c t s ' s e l f - r e p o r t s of t h e i r own a c t i o n s lend no credence t h a t these a l t e r -n a t i v e s were major, determinants of the observed behaviour. There were d i f f e r e n c e s between the experiments, however. In Experiment I, approximately 70% of s u b j e c t s ' motives were judged to be r e l a t e d t o t r u s t . In Experiment I I , : over 90% of the motives f e l l i n t o t h i s category. Hence, i n the one-to-one i n t e r p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n of Experiment I I , t r u s t was judged to be a more immediately r e l e v a n t b e h a v i o u r a l motive than i t was i n Experiment I. When th e r e i s a d i r e c t i n t e r a c t i o n between people i n a s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n h e r e n t 106 r i s k , t r u s t becomes a more s a l i e n t motive than when there i s an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h people i n g e n e r a l or an i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n s t i t u t i o n s . The adequacy of the sampling i n the experiments de-serves examination and c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The high p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e i n r e c r u i t i n g s u b j e c t s and the high r e t u r n r a t e of m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s g i v e c o n f i d e n c e t h a t there was no r e s t r i c t i v e s e l f - s e l e c t i o n b i a s o p e r a t i n g i n the experiments. The v o l u n t e e r or p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e was e x c e p t i o n a l l y high i n Experiments I and I I , perhaps, i n p a r t , because s u b j e c t s had been e n l i s t e d i n the l i b r a r y . Students may have been amenable to t a k i n g p a r t i n a survey presented as examining l i b r a r y s e c u r i t y , a non-threatening and non-c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e , because they were us i n g l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s . Furthermore, the experimenter's approach i n t h i s unexpected s e t t i n g may have f a c i l i t a t e d s u b j e c t s ' c o o p e r a t i o n and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n t h a t the survey's purpose was important and r e l e v a n t . The r e t u r n r a t e f o r the m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e - i n both experiments was very h i g h (91%) f o r t h i s type of r e s e a r c h technique. P a r t of the success i n o b t a i n i n g such a high q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n r a t e may have been the chance of winning a s u b s t a n t i a l p r i z e (one of the v a r i a b l e s of experimental i n t e r e s t ) o f f e r e d to s u b j e c t s f o r completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 107 Another reason f o r the high r e t u r n r a t e may have been the p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the experimenter and s u b j e c t . The experimenter's approach was a s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n of the " f o o t - i n ^ t h e - d o o r " technique. The experimenter obtained p r e l i m i n a r y data from s u b j e c t s (a sma l l f a v o u r ) , a r o u s i n g t h e i r i n t e r e s t and involvement, b e f o r e handing out the q u e s t i o n n a i r e (a l a r g e f a v o u r ) . F i n a l l y , when s u b j e c t s accepted the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f o r completion, they were asked to promise to r e t u r n them. As a f u r t h e r inducement to keep t h e i r promise, s u b j e c t s were asked f o r t h e i r names and phone numbers i n case a reminder c a l l was necessary. C a l l s were made to s u b j e c t s whose q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not r e t u r n e d w i t h i n two weeks. The above reasons - a chance a t a p r i z e , the " f o o t - i n - t h e -door" technique, and follow-up c a l l s - helped produce 216 out of 237 completed r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Another matter of concern i n judging the e f f i c a c y of the e xperimental procedures i s the r e l i a b i l i t y o f the exper-i m e n t a l measure, the ITS. The r e l i a b i l i t y df the ITS was h i g h (r = .96) as assessed by the s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n . Furthermore, a comparison of a group of U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia female undergraduates w i t h the experimental s u b j e c t s a t the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a showed c o n s i s t e n c y i n mean ITS scores (Tables 6 and 7). 108 In c o n c l u s i o n , i t i s not unreasonable to i n f e r t h a t t r u s t was, indeed, the v a r i a b l e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Three judges c l a s s i f y i n g s u b j e c t s ' motives (and a v a l i d a t i n g study of the experimental measures at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia) support such an a s s e r t i o n . Furthermore, the ITS was r e l i a b l e i n terms of i t s i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y and the c o n s i s t e n c y of the mean scores o b t a i n e d from two s i m i l a r sample groups. F i n a l l y , high p a r t i c i p a t i o n and r e t u r n r a t e s r e l i e v e any reasonable doubt t h a t an a r t i f a c t i n s u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n i n f l u e n c e d the outcome. Because the experimenter was a l s o the a d m i n i s t r a t o r of Experiments I and I I , the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s s i b i l i t y of e x p e r i -menter b i a s e x i s t s . However, a p p r o p r i a t e p r e c a u t i o n s were taken a g a i n s t b i a s i n g s u b j e c t s ' responses. For example, care was taken to s t a n d a r d i z e the p r e s e n t a t i o n and wording of the requests to s u b j e c t s and:the experimenter c a r e f u l l y and c o n s c i e n t i o u s l y avoided any cues to s u b j e c t s about how they were t o respond. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , the n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g of these experiments, the p l a u s i b i l i t y and "spontan-e i t y " of the s i t u a t i o n , and the a p p a r e n t l y r e a l r i s k s i n v o l v e d , served to minimize the e f f e c t ;bf demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Perhaps a s s i s t a n t s , b l i n d t o the experimental hypotheses, should have adm i n i s t e r e d the experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n s , 109 p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Experiment T l . However, such a measure would not have e n t i r e l y disposed of the p o s s i b i l i t y of experimenter b i a s s i n c e i t i s g e n e r a l l y admitted t h a t a s s i s t a n t s , as w e l l as s u b j e c t s , are i n c u r a b l e s l e u t h s when i t comes to h y p o t h e s i z i n g experimental purposes. As Orne (1970) has pointed, out: . . . i t i s f u t i l e to imagine an experiment t h a t c o u l d be c r e a t e d without demand c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . One of the b a s i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the human being i s t h a t he w i l l a s c r i b e purpose and meaning even i n the absence of purpose and meaning. (p. 11) In s h o r t , because of the p r e c a u t i o n s taken and the p l a u s i b l e , n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g s of the experiments, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t experimenter b i a s or demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a p p r e c i a b l y a f f e c t e d the outcome of these s t u d i e s . Risk,and Trust The r e s u l t s o f Experiments I and I I have demonstrated the importance of l e v e l of r i s k and r i s k assessment i n i n f l u e n c i n g t r u s t behaviour. Furthermore, the f i n d i n g s are s u g g e s t i v e , but not y e t c o n c l u s i v e , of a d i f f e r e n c e between s i t u a t i o n s of t r u s t and those of r i s k - t a k i n g and chance. In a d d i t i o n , support has been found f o r the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t w i t h s l i g h t m o d i f i c a t i o n , i n t r o -duced i n Chapter I. 110 In the f i r s t two experiments, i t was found t h a t as the l e v e l of manipulated r i s k i n c r e a s e d , the frequency of t r u s t behaviour decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y : r i s k assessment was s i g n i f i c a n t l y and i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviour. The two r i s k v a r i a b l e s , l e v e l of r i s k and r i s k assessment, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o each o t h e r . In these experiments, l e v e l of r i s k was an independent, dichotomous v a r i a b l e , and r i s k assessment was a continuous, dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between l e v e l of r i s k and t r u s t behaviour has v a l i d a t e d the experience of everyday l i f e : i n c r e a s i n g r i s k decreases t r u s t . The p o s t i n g of warning s i g n s i n a program such as "Neighbourhood Watch" i s designed to d e t e r t h i e v e s and a l s o d iscourage unwarranted t r u s t behaviour of others by reminding them of the attendant r i s k s i n such behaviour. The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t described.in the f i r s t chapter proposes t h a t r i s k assessment precedes t r u s t behaviour. In these f i e l d experiments, the experimental d e s i g n and the r e c r u i t m e n t of s u b j e c t s d i d not a l l o w f o r the c l e a r e s tablishment of t h i s temporal order. L i t c o u l d be argued t h a t because s u b j e c t s gave t h e i r r i s k assessments a f t e r they had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the t r u s t s i t u a t i o n , r i s k assessment i s merely a r e a c t i v e measure a f f e c t e d by s u b j e c t s ' I l l need to appear r a t i o n a l and c o n s i s t e n t and to j u s t i f y t h e i r t r u s t behaviour. However, a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour e x i s t e d i n Experiment I, even though the demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were l e s s than they had been i n Experiment I I . In Experiment I, s u b j e c t s d i d not know t h a t the e x p e r i -menter had made an u n o b t r u s i v e measure of t h e i r behaviour with r e s p e c t to l e a v i n g belongings on the washroom bench. Hence, w h i l e r i s k assessment r a t i n g s may have been i n f l u e n c e d by s u b j e c t s ' immediately p r e c e d i n g behaviour, i t was not because s u b j e c t s knew t h a t the •experimenter' was a p p r i s e d of t h e i r behaviour t h a t they made the k i n d of r a t i n g s t h a t they d i d . T h i s evidence, of course, does not completely dispose of the problem of determining the order of e f f e c t of r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour; but t h e r e i s no doubt that: a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p does e x i s t between these v a r i a b l e s . The t h i r d type of: r i s k i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the p r e s e n t i n q u i r y was r i s k - t a k i n g i n a s i t u a t i o n of chance and i t s e f f e c t on t r u s t behaviour. I t was a s s e r t e d i n the opening chapter of t h i s paper t h a t r i s k assessment and r i s k - t a k i n g were d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s , and, from the r e s u l t s , t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s supported. On the one hand, a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour 112 was f o u n d — i n Experiment I the c o r r e l a t i o n was .39 (n = 116, -p< . 0 1 ) , and i n Experiment I I the c o r r e l a t i o n was .51 (n = 121, p< . 0 1 ) — w h i l e , on the other hand, what has been c a l l e d " r i s k - t a k i n g " was shown to be independent of t r u s t behaviour. S u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e of the l o t t e r y t i c k e t s over the cash p r i z e was taken t o r e f l e c t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f r i s k - t a k i n g , i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l sense of gambling, than s e l e c t i n g the cash. I t was hypothesized t h a t b e h a v i o u r a l l y t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s would e l e c t the l o t t e r y t i c k e t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more f r e q u e n t l y than the b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i s t r u s t i n g s u b j e c t s . However, r e s u l t s d i d not support t h i s h y p o t h e s i s . More p r e c i s e study o f t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p ought to be made. The c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e between r i s k - t a k i n g i n gambling and s i t u a t i o n s of luck and chance and the r i s k - t a k i n g i n v o l v e d i n t r u s t i n g , no doubt, r e s i d e s i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l aspects which are i n h e r e n t i n t r u s t - d e c i s i o n s and of minimal or no r e l e v a n c e i n game s i t u a t i o n s . Risk assessment, as c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n these.' experiments, i n c l u d e s the e f f e c t o f these i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s , and hence shows s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to t r u s t behaviour. R i s k - t a k i n g i n the ch o i c e of p r i z e ( i n t h i s , i n s t a n c e , e i t h e r cash o r . l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ) , where the emphasis i s p r i m a r i l y p l a c e d on the maximization o f p e r s o n a l outcome, 113 does not i n d i c a t e s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t behaviour. Here the r e s u l t s from these experiments support the view t h a t s i t u a t i o n s of chance and luck cannot be p r o f i t a b l y extended to the more complex s i t u a t i o n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , and t h a t t r u s t behaviour does not r e l a t e t o r i s k - t a k i n g i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l sense of gambling. There are some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between Experiments I and I I which deserve d i s c u s s i o n and which suggest an area f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . In these experiments, l e v e l of r i s k was manipulated i n two d i f f e r e n t ways. In Experiment I, where the p o s t i n g of a s i g n read, i n p a r t : " S e v e r a l a r t i c l e s have been stolen,'" the p r o b a b i l i t y of a negative outcome was changed. The s i g n encouraged the view t h a t the users (or some user) of the washroom were (had been) untrustworthy. Hence, even though a s u b j e c t might enter the washroom on two d i f f e r e n t o c c a sions (when a s i g n was posted and when i t was not) c a r r y i n g the same a r t i c l e s (the same v a l u e / u t i l i t y of o b j e c t a t s t a k e ) , the s u b j e c t ' s behaviour might be d i f f e r e n t on each o c c a s i o n . The warning s i g n would i n c r e a s e assessments of the p r o b a b i l i t y of a n e g a t i v e outcome. In Experiment I I , the experimenter made the same request of s u b j e c t s . In one case, the request was made whi l e c a r r y i n g a s i n g l e s m a l l book, and i n another case, 114 w h i l e h o l d i n g three l a r g e a r t books. Hence, the t r u s t -worthy/untrustworthy appearances of the experimenter was presumably the same over the r i s k c o n d i t i o n (the p r o b a b i l i t y of negative outcome was:the same) although the v a l u e / u t i l i t y aspect of r i s k was not. The number and s i z e of books which s u b j e c t s were asked to borrow f o r the experimenter changed. The m a n i p u l a t i o n of these two aspects of r i s k (the p r o b a b i l i t y of negative outcome i n Experiment I and the v a l u e / u t i l i t y component of the o b j e c t s a t stake i n Experiment II) l e d to a s i m i l a r l y p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n c e i n l e v e l of r i s k , and the e f f e c t of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n l e v e l o f r i s k on t r u s t behaviour was n e a r l y the same i n both experiments. A more syst e m a t i c study of these components of r i s k with regard to t h e i r e f f e c t on t r u s t might be undertaken a t some l a t e r date. Experiments I and II d i f f e r e d i n another important way and t h i s d i f f e r e n c e suggests the n e c e s s i t y of m o d i f y i n g the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t shown i n F i g u r e 1. Experiment I p r o v i d e d a s i t u a t i o n i n which t r u s t of people i n g e n e r a l was a t i s s u e . Experiment II was based upon a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n i n which there was f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t between s u b j e c t s and a s t r a n g e r . The major f i n d i n g s concerning the e f f e c t of r i s k assessment on t r u s t behaviour remain the same i n the two 115 experiments even though d i f f e r e n c e s d i d e x i s t — d i f f e r e n c e s i n t r u s t agent ( t r u s t i n a group of anonymous others v s . t r u s t i n a s i n g l e unknown stimulus person) and the a s c r i b e d t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s .of the t r u s t agent. The two experimental s i t u a t i o n s were e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t . In Experiment I, the r a t e s of t r u s t behaviour i n the low and high r i s k condition.were 48% and 15%, r e s p e c t i v e l y . In Experiment I I , the r a t e s were 73% and 53%, r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t might be expected from the hypotheses and the c o n c e p t u a l i -z a t i o n (Figure 1) t h a t the r i s k assessments i n E x p e r i -ment. I I would be a c c o r d i n g l y l e s s than i n Experiment I; however, such was not the case. I t i s perhaps not too s u r p r i s i n g t h a t i t i s e a s i e r to t r u s t a s p e c i f i c other (because of our conf i d e n c e i n our-s e l v e s as amateur p s y c h o l o g i s t s ? ) than unknown o t h e r s . Furthermore, i n the f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n f r o n t a t i o n of Experiment IT, b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t r a t e s may be high e r than i n Experiment I, because s u b j e c t s face the a d d i t i o n a l p r e s s u r e s of the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of t r u s t i n g . The success of a s s e r t i v e t r a i n i n g . c l i n i c s i n d i c a t e s t h a t many people f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o r e f u s e f a c e - t o - f a c e appeals. The h i g h e r r i s k assessments (and high e r r i s k r a t es) i n Experiment I I than Experiment I are at f i r s t p u z z l i n g s i n c e i t has been shown t h a t r i s k assessment i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y 116 and i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviour. An e x p l a n a t i o n of t h i s r e s u l t may depend upon the p e r c e i v e d t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the t r u s t agent. Indeed, the experimenter's t r u s t w o r t h y appearance was spontaneously mentioned as a determining f a c t o r i n s u b j e c t s ' b e h a v i o u r a l c h o i c e i n 28% of the cases i n Experiment I I . What has been e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated i n the two e x p e r i -ments has been i n f o r m a l l y observed, and o f t e n r e p o r t e d , i n the newspapers. S t o r i e s are f r e q u e n t l y encountered about unsuspecting i n d i v d i u a l s (sometimes termed "marks" or "pigeons") being swindled and cheated by an unscrupulous person ( c a l l e d a "con-man") who has been t r u s t e d t o the mark's detriment and r e g r e t . Often the :"mark" acknowledges t h a t he or she r e a l i z e d a t the time the r i s k i n v o l v e d . Because the "con-man" appeared so trustworthy, the mark overcame i n i t i a l r e s e r v a t i o n s and i n v e s t e d t r u s t , o f t e n i n s p i t e of b e t t e r judgement. In Experiment I I , s u b j e c t s enact the f i r s t chapter of these unhappy s t o r i e s : they t r u s t , d e s p i t e the h i g h r i s k which they r e c o g n i z e e x i s t s , because of the apparent t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the • 18 experimenter. 18 H a p p i l y f o r subjects,, t h e r e are no sad endings to t h i s experiment. However, the con-men are c o r r e c t : You can't f o o l a l l of the people a l l of the time but you can f o o l most of them wi t h a p l a u s i b l e t a l e and a t r u s t w o r t h y approach even when the stakes are h i g h . 117 At t h i s p o i n t , a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the proposed concept-u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t must be made. Risk assessment, although s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to t r u s t behaviour, i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by o u t s i d e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which, at times, lowers the frequency of t r u s t behaviour. The new schemat-i z a t i o n i n t r o d u c e s a new l e v e l between r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour (Figure 2 ) . T h i s l e v e l may be c a l l e d " r i s k acceptance". In the case of Experiment I I , r i s k acceptance i n f l u e n c e s t r u s t behaviour i n the f o l l o w i n g way: even though a person might make a hig h r i s k assessment of s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s (based upon e x i s t i n g l e v e l of r i s k and p e r c e p t i o n s of i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s ) , the i n d i v i d u a l may deci d e to t r u s t , n e v e r t h e l e s s . That i s , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r circumstance, the person might t r u s t because of other mediating f a c t o r s , such as a n t i c i p a t e d disappointment of the oth e r person or a wish t o help a f e l l o w student t o pass her exams. I n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s not o n l y are a component of r i s k assessment but a l s o may l e a d one to accept g r e a t e r r i s k ( f o r a v a r i e t y o f reasons) than otherwise would be under-taken. In a d i f f e r e n t context,, t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n between degree of r i s k and the acceptance of r i s k has been drawn b e f o r e . Lowrance (1976) has w r i t t e n about s o c i e t a l , h e a l t h and 118 TRUST SITUATION Trust D i s p o s i t i o n Risk Assessment Objective Risk Interpersonal V a r i a b l e s Risk Acceptance Behavioural I n t e n t i o n Trust Behaviour L Figure 2. A Modified C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of Trust Behaviour 119 o c c u p a t i o n a l hazards and how they ought t o be e v a l u a t e d . He s t a t e s t h a t there are two d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s necessary i n making judgements about s a f e t y . F i r s t , t h e r e i s the " o b j e c t i v e but p r o b a b i l i s t i c p u r s u i t " of measuring r i s k , and second, the "personal and s o c i a l v alue judgement" of a s s e s s i n g the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the r i s k . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n may a l s o be r e l e v a n t to t r u s t d e c i s i o n s . C e r t a i n l y , i t ought to be explored f u r t h e r . In Experiment I, r i s k a c c e p t a b i l i t y may a l s o have a f f e c t e d the t r u s t behaviour of s u b j e c t s . People may have t r u s t e d i n the washroom study, d e s p i t e high r i s k assessments, f o r a v a r i e t y o f reasons. For example, they may have thought t h a t another person would not have time to s t e a l t h e i r p o s sessions d u r i n g the b r i e f p e r i o d t h a t a r t i c l e s would be on the bench out of view. Hence, whereas g e n e r a l l y high r i s k assessments d i c t a t e d i s t r u s t i n g behaviour, a person may be w i l l i n g t o accept g r e a t e r r i s k s i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n (because of extenuating circumstances) and, t h e r e f o r e , t r u s t . The r e v i s e d model of t r u s t proposed here c l e a r l y c a l l s f o r e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The ITS: The Prediction of Trust Behaviour Prom A Dispositional Measure In a l l t h r e e experiments, the ITS f a i l e d to show s i g n i f -i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with any of the t r u s t measures. T h i s 120 r e s u l t was s u r p r i s i n g because i t had been expected t h a t the ITS would be one of the means of v a l i d a t i n g the b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t measures. However, the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the c o r r e l a t i o n between the ITS and the t r u s t measures a f f e c t s the c r e d i b i l i t y of the widely used t r u s t s c a l e , l a r g e l y because other methods of v a l i d a t i o n d i d lend support to the b e h a v i o u r a l measures. Moreover, i t has now been shown t h a t the ITS does not p r o v i d e p r e d i c t i o n i n two p r e v i o u s l y unexplored t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s (Experiments I and II) and i n a r e p l i c a t i o n of Wright e t a l . Hence, the s t a t u s of the ITS as a b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t o r becomes suspect. Many s o c i a l psychology experiments have r e l i e d upon the ITS as a t r u s t measure. As A l l e n (1973) has p o i n t e d out, s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s f e e l "more comfortable w i t h q u e s t i o n -n a i r e s and computer wizardry on t h e i r r e s u l t s than w i t h b e h a v i o u r a l e x p r e s s i o n s " (p. 216). There i s high i n t e r e s t i n the area of t r u s t r e s e a r c h , and, as Chun and Campbell (1974) observe, i n v e s t i g a t o r s , eager to embark on t h e i r s t u d i e s and anxious to r e l a t e t h e i r f i n d i n g s to c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e use t o o l s which are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e . The body of l i t e r a t u r e employing the ITS has expanded and g i v e s the s c a l e a r e s p e c t a b i l i t y ( i n terms of number of 19 c x t a t i o n s ? ) which i t may not deserve. The ITS, never on Note t h a t i n some c u r r e n t a r t i c l e s (e.g., E n d l e r , 1979 and S c h a e f f e r and Sulyma, 1979), t h i s measure, number 121 p a r t i c u l a r l y s o l i d ground, i s r e a c h i n g the p o i n t where an e v a l u a t i o n of i t s p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y must be made. In a r e c e n t paper on the ITS, R o t t e r (Note 8) mentions s e v e r a l s t u d i e s (some of them unpublished) which v a l i d a t e the t r u s t s c a l e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t three of these s t u d i e s (Hamsher, 1978; S t e i n k e , 1975; and Wright, 1972) i n v o l v e d the c o r r e l a t i o n of ITS scores w i t h some form of game behaviour. There are, however, d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h t h i s type of v a l i d a t i o n . One immediately obvious d i f f i c u l t y i s t h a t r e s u l t s from game s t u d i e s have not c o n s i s t e n t l y supported the ITS. (See S i n g e r and S i n g e r , 1972.) Another d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the ITS i s the transparency of i t s items, which makes i t s u s c e p t i b l e t o demand c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . The s c a l e i s wide-ranging and can r e a d i l y be answered i n such a way as to conform to a s t e r e o t y p e of a t r u s t i n g or d i s t r u s t i n g person. Hence, i n the s t u d i e s men^. ioned by R o t t e r s u p p o r t i n g h i s s c a l e , i t i s important to note when the ITS was administered i n r e l a t i o n to the measurement of game behaviour. (For example, i f a person decided, f o r whatever reasons, to p l a y a g g r e s s i v e l y and c o m p e t i t i v e l y , and then subsequently completed the ITS, i t i s p l a u s i b l e t o p r e d i c t on the b a s i s of demand c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s alone t h a t the ITS responses would r e v e a l a d i s -of c i t a t i o n s , has been taken as an index of eminence of s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s . The p i t f a l l s are perhaps the same! 122 t r u s t i n g a t t i t u d e . ) I f the ITS were c o n s t r u c t e d i n a more s u b t l e way with some emphasis on s u b j e c t s ' b e h a v i o u r a l r e p o r t i n g - and l e s s on b e l i e f s and a t t i t u d e s , the s c a l e would be l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e to such i n f l u e n c e s . An examination of ITS items shows t h a t the s c a l e taps widespread a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s about matters p e r i p h e r a l l y r e l a t e d t o t r u s t such as the world's f u t u r e and the j u d i c i a r y . In f a c t , an item by item examination of the s c a l e shows t h a t some items are p a r t i c u l a r l y v u l n e r a b l e to changes i n p u b l i c o p i n i o n . For example, "The U n i t e d Nations w i l l never be an e f f e c t i v e f o r c e i n keeping world peace"; "The j u d i c i a r y i s a p l a c e where we can a l l get unbiased treatment"; and, "Most e l e c t e d p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s are r e a l l y s i n c e r e i n t h e i r campaign promises.") The f i r s t two. items would be a f f e c t e d by c u r r e n t events (such as c l a s h e s . i n U n i t e d N a t i o ns' peace-keeping zones or some p u b l i c i z e d cause of a m i n o r i t y group) and the t h i r d item might depend upon p r o x i m i t y to v o t i n g day and one's p o l i t i c a l s t r i p e s . Although s u b j e c t s ' t r u s t behaviour might be expected to vary somewhat a c c o r d i n g to the s i t u a -t i o n , a g e n e r a l i z e d s c a l e of t r u s t should be f a i r l y s t a b l e . The i n c l u s i o n of the items d i s c u s s e d here suggest t h a t the s c a l e .is a weathervane of p u b l i c a t t i t u d e which makes i t a p r e c a r i o u s p r e d i c t o r of t r u s t behaviour. 123 There have been suggestions made by Chun and Campbell (1974), Kaplan (1973), and Wright and Sharp (1979) t h a t the p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of the ITS c o u l d be improved by c o r r e l a t i n g the u n d e r l y i n g dimensions, r e v e a l e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , w i t h t r u s t behaviour r a t h e r than u s i n g a t o t a l ITS s c o r e . But n e i t h e r o f two f a c t o r a n a l y t i c refinements employed i n t h i s study produced s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . The f i r s t method i n v o l v e d the c o r r e l a t i o n of the f o u r f a c t o r s d e r i v e d by Chun and Campbell (1974) w i t h t r u s t behaviour. These f a c t o r s were: Hypocrisy, S k e p t i c i s m , E x p l o i t a t i o n , and Role Performance. The p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between the o v e r a l l ITS scores and t r u s t behaviours i n Experiments I and I I had been +.10 and +.06, r e s p e c t i v e l y , and when the f o u r f a c t o r s suggested by Chun and Campbell were i n d i v i d u a l l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t r u s t behaviour, no a p p r e c i a b l e i n c r e a s e i n the s i z e of the c o r r e l a t i o n s r e s u l t e d . The h i g h e s t c o r r e l a t i o n was +.13 between the f a c t o r H ypocrisy and the t r u s t behaviour i n Experiment I Cleaving possessions on a washroom bench). The second method was based upon a r e c e n t paper by Wright and Sharp (1979). These r e s e a r c h e r s suggested t h a t e i g h t p a r t i c u l a r ITS items, some of which'were;:mentioned above as d e a l i n g w i t h the j u d i c i a r y , p o l i t i c s or what they designated as "power," should be e l i m i n a t e d when t e s t i n g 124 f o r female t r u s t towards other women. A c c o r d i n g l y , r a t i n g s on these e i g h t items were dropped from o r i g i n a l ITS scores on these experiments and new p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s c a l c u l a t e d . Once again, t h i s refinement on the ITS d i d not y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s . While f a c t o r a n a l y t i c techniques p r o v i d e s u p e r f i c i a l improvements i n s c a l e s , they do not go to the h e a r t of the matter and g i v e conceptual r e d e f i n i t i o n s . The problems of the ITS are a p p a r e n t l y s e r i o u s enough t h a t simple s c a l e r e f i n e m e n t may not be a remedy. L a t e r the l i n e s of develop-ment a new t r u s t s c a l e might f o l l o w w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . F a i l u r e to Replicate the Study of Wright,. Maggied, and Balmer Although an attempt was made to f o l l o w the method of the Wright e t a l . study i n Experiment I I I , some unavoidable o b s t a c l e s were encountered. These d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, cannot f u l l y account f o r the di s c r e p a n c y i n experimental outcome and may be e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t . One d i f f e r e n c e between the s t u d i e s was i n the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s of s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each study. In the study of Wright e t a l . , a l l students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the telephone t r u s t study were e n r o l l e d i n a psychology course. In the presen t study, because students were r e -c r u i t e d from the u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y r a t h e r than from a 125 psychology c l a s s , not a l l students had taken one or more psychology courses. In order to t e s t the e f f e c t of being a psychology student on the experimental t r u s t v a r i a b l e s , s u b j e c t s i n Experiment I I I were asked whether they had p r e v i o u s l y taken psychology courses. There were no s i g n i f -i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s u b j e c t s ' responses t o t h i s q u e s t i o n and the number of s u s p i c i o u s q u e s t i o n s asked, t(94) = .49, n.s., the t o t a l number of ques t i o n s asked, t (94)'• = -.44, n.s., and the ITS scores., t(;94) = . 38, n . s . ) . Another d i f f e r e n c e between the two s t u d i e s was s u b j e c t s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Experiment I or II p r e v i o u s to t h e i r being i n Experiment I I I . The e f f e c t o f s u b j e c t s ' p r i o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n one of the other experiments may have c o n t r i b u t e d to the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s i n the C h a r l e s -worth study d i d ask more qu e s t i o n s on average (M = 2.19 Lt and M = 2.33 f o r low and hi g h t r u s t e r s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) than i n the Wright e t a l . study (MT = 2.18 and M = 1.61 f o r low and hi g h t r u s t e r s ) . I t w i l l be seen from these f i g u r e s t h a t i n the Charlesworth study high t r u s t e r s asked more (but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y more) q u e s t i o n s than d i d the low t r u s t e r s , whereas, i n Wright e t a l . the d i r e c t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was r e v e r s e d . That high t r u s t e r s should ask more ques t i o n s ( i . e . , be b e h a v i o u r a l l y d i s t r u s t i n g ) i n the Charlesworth study on the t r u s t measures i s e n t i r e l y 126 c o n t r a r y to the f i n d i n g s of Wright e t a l . Such f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t e i t h e r the ITS or the t r u s t measures them-s e l v e s are u n r e l i a b l e and i n a p p r o p r i a t e . There are fou r reasons t h a t may account f o r the f a i l u r e of Experiment I I I to o b t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . The f i r s t reason t o be proposed i s based upon the v a l i d a t i n g study at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia r e f e r r e d t o p r e v i o u s l y . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d from t h i s v a l i d a t i n g study t h a t judges r a t e d the t r u s t s i t u a t i o n i n Experiment I I I (the number of qu e s t i o n s asked when c a l l e d t o be i n an experiment) lower (M = 2.64), i n terms of t r u s t , than the s i t u a t i o n s of Experiments I or I I (M = 1.96 and M = 1.52, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The mean r a t i n g g i v e n to the t r u s t behaviour of Experiment I I I i s very c l o s e to the mid-point of the s c a l e (3) even though the s i t u a t i o n was r a t e d as s i g n i f i c -a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the mid-point. T h i s i s not c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t the Wright e t a l . measures are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t r u s t . Looking at the comparative frequency of s u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s (Table 3), i t can a l s o be seen t h a t there was a much g r e a t e r d i s p e r s i o n o f scores across the s c a l e . There was l e s s agreement t h a t Experiment I I I was, indeed, a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n . S u b j e c t s ' r a t i n g s f o r the oth e r two experimental s i t u a t i o n s , on the other hand, were c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the high t r u s t end of the s c a l e . 127 A second r e a s o n f o r the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n c e o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I may be t h a t t h e ITS i s n o t a good p r e d i c t o r o f t r u s t b e h a v i o u r i n s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s such as i n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s . The ITS was i n t r o d u c e d as a measure o f g e n e r a l i z e d t r u s t , and hence may f a i l i n the p r e d i c t i o n o f any one s p e c i f i c m e a s u r e . A t h i r d r e a s o n f o r the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n c e o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I r e l a t e s t o the f i r s t one mentioned a b o v e , namely t h a t t r u s t measures d e s i g n a t e d by W r i g h t e t a l . a r e n o t s t r o n g i n d i c e s o f t r u s t . A c l o s e e x a m i n a t i o n o f the q u e s t i o n s d e s i g n a t e d as s u s p i c i o u s by t h e c o d i n g system o f W r i g h t e t a l . (Appendix D) shows t h a t most o f t h e q u e s t i o n s ( e . g . , "What k i n d o f e x p e r i m e n t i s i t ? " , "Who i s t h i s ? " , and "Am I g o i n g t o g e t o u t on t i m e ? " ) c o u l d e q u a l l y w e l l have been prompted by c u r i o s i t y , s o c i a b i l i t y , and i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g as t h e y c o u l d by l a c k o f t r u s t . A f i n a l r e a s o n f o r the d i s c r e p a n t e x p e r i m e n t a l outcomes may be found i n a p a p e r by W r i g h t and S h a r p (1979). They m a i n t a i n t h a t t h e ITS p r o v i d e s " a c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e o f t r u s t towards women" (p. 72) and t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e c o n t e n t and g r a m m a t i c a l sex b i a s o f the s c a l e , i t may n o t be an a p p r o p r i a t e measure f o r t r u s t towards a n o t h e r f e m a l e . C e r t a i n l y t h e r e s u l t s o f E x p e r i m e n t I I I i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e ITS was n o t a d i s c r i m i n a t i n g measure o f t h e c r i t e r i o n t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s i n t r o d u c e d by W r i g h t e t a l . 128 T h e r e i s an i n t e r e s t i n g s i d e l i g h t t o t h e W r i g h t e t a l . s t u d y w h i c h r e l a t e s t o the mean ITS s c o r e s , w h i c h t h e y r e p o r t f o r t h e i r s u b j e c t group as 6 5 .15 . T h i s mean i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o b t a i n e d by t h e s u b j e c t group i n E x p e r i m e n t I I I (74 .14) . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e may be a t t r i b u t e d t o the d i f f e r e n t t i m e s a t w h i c h t h e ITS was 20 a d m i n i s t e r e d (1974 vs 1978) and t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p o l i t i c a l c l i m a t e which have been r e p o r t e d t o i n f l u e n c e 21 mean ITS s c o r e s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t e w o r t h y t h a t the ITS means o f s u b j e c t s i n E x p e r i m e n t I I I were n o t s i g n i f -i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e mean ITS s c o r e o f a group o f U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s t u d e n t s . T h a t i s , t h e ITS s c o r e s o f t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a samples were s t a b l e . However^ the ITS means o f s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d i n W r i g h t e t a l . a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e r e p o r t e d by R o t t e r f o r t h e same t i m e p e r i o d . S u b j e c t s i n the W r i g h t e t a l . study were s i m i l a r t o the women i n R o t t e r ' s s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n R o t t e r (Note 7) r e p o r t s t h a t t h e ITS r e a c h e d a low p o i n t i n 1972 (not s p e c i f i e d ) and has been s t e a d i l y r i s i n g s i n c e t h e n . 21 The ITS i s a p p a r e n t l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o p o l i t i c a l e v e n t s such as W a t e r g a t e and the Warren C o m m i s s i o n . (Cf . A l d o u s and J o h n s o n . ITS and R e a c t i o n s t o t h e S e n a t e W a t e r g a t e C o m m i t t e e . Personality and Social Psychology B u l l e t i n , 1974, 1 (1) , 166-167 and Hamsher, G e l l e r , and R o t t e r . I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and t h e Warren Commission R e p o r t . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 5 ( 3 ) , 210-215. 129 group s i n c e both s t u d i e s employed female, e a s t e r n American u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s . Given these b a s i c s i m i l a r i t i e s i n samples, i t i s p e c u l i a r t h a t mean ITS scores should be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . Wright et a l . d i d r e p l i c a t e t h e i r study w i t h two d i f f e r e n t sample groups and r e p o r t e d the same s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s w i t h approximately the same magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s i z e of the e f f e c t . Experiment I I I c o u l d not. Such a r e s u l t i s d i s a p p o i n t i n g . However, g i v e n the g e n e r a l -i t y of the items composing the ITS, i t s r e c o r d o f b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t i o n , the paper by Wright and Sharp (1979) t h a t the ITS i s perhaps not a r e l i a b l e p r e d i c t o r f o r t r u s t of women, and the judged r e l a t i o n s h i p between the Wright e t a l . measures and t r u s t (by the v a l i d a t i n g group a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia), i t i s more s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Wright e t a l . were able to r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s i n two d i f f e r e n t samples than t h a t Experiment I I I c o u l d not r e p l i c a t e such r e s u l t s . The problem may not be t h a t the Wright e t a l . study i s a one (two?)- shot a f f a i r but t h a t the e f f e c t which they found i s not robust enough to s u r v i v e change over time and l o c a t i o n . 130 Conelusions I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t i s one of the c r u c i a l bases o f a l l s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s of g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t t o s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s as w e l l as t o laymen. These three experiments have not provided a l l the answers t o the questions which occupy t r u s t r e s e a r c h e r s but, by d i n t of t a k i n g the study of t r u s t o u t s i d e the l a b o r a t o r y , these experiments have gone beyond game s i t u a t i o n s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and c o n t r i v e d s i t u a t i o n s i n an al r e a d y s u s p i c i o u s - l a d e n atmosphere i n t o the r e a l world. Hence, a p a r t from dimin-i s h i n g the e f f e c t s of s u s p i c i o n and demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n h e r e n t i n many l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s of t r u s t , these f i e l d s t u d i e s have i n v e s t i g a t e d common t r u s t e x periences which have impact and d i r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n to everyday l i f e . Some of the important r e s u l t s from these experiments r e l a t e t o the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the ITS as a b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t o r of t r u s t , the importance of d i s p o s i t i o n i n d e c i d i n g a c t i o n i n t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s , an o p p o r t u n i t y to t e s t f o r b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y with regard to t r u s t behaviour, and the e m p i r i c a l l y demonstrated e f f e c t o f r i s k on t r u s t . On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f t r u s t o f f e r e d i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n has been proposed. 131 D i s p o s i t i o n , as measured by the ITS, demonstrated no p r e d i c t i v e c a p a b i l i t y i n any of the three experiments. Even the f i n d i n g s of Wright et a l . (1975) c o u l d not be r e p l i c a t e d . D i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t must t r a n s l a t e i t s e l f i n t o behaviour i f i t i s to be a u s e f u l p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t . A few p u b l i s h e d s t u d i e s have o f f e r e d v a l i d a t i o n o f the ITS but the f a i l u r e to v a l i d a t e three d i f f e r e n t t r u s t b ehaviours, among them a p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d study, shows t h a t the support f o r the ITS i n terms of t r u s t behaviour i s weak. Wright and Sharp have s t a t e d t h a t when t r u s t by and i n women i s being i n v e s t i g a t e d , as i t was i n these experiments, the ITS may be a poor p r e d i c t o r because of i t s content and grammatical sex b i a s . C l e a r l y , f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n of the ITS as a p r e d i c t o r of female t r u s t ought to be made. A l l t h r e e experiments r e p o r t e d here d i d i n v o l v e female s u b j e c t s responding to a t r u s t s i t u a t i o n w i t h another woman. T h i s p a r t i c u l a r t r u s t dyad, female-female, has been a l o n g - n e g l e c t e d one i n terms of r e s e a r c h . These r e s u l t s do not n e c e s s a r i l y suggest t h a t d i s p o s -i t i o n has no r o l e t o p l a y i n t r u s t decision-making. The c o n v i c t i o n remains t h a t there are t r u s t i n g and d i s t r u s t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s who behave i n a r e l a t i v e l y p r e d i c t a b l e and c o n s i s t e n t manner (although b e h a v i o u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y c o u l d not be demonstrated i n the l i m i t e d sampling of behaviour 132 shown i n t h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s . ) In f a c t , i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s o f t h e f a c t o r s c o n -t r i b u t i n g t o t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s i n E x p e r i m e n t s I and I I showed t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70% o f t h e v a r i a n c e c o u l d n o t be e x p l a i n e d by t h e f a c t o r s i n v e s t i g a t e d h e r e . D i s p o s i t i o n as a g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c y o r a t t i t u d e may a c c o u n t f o r some o f t h i s u n e x p l a i n e d v a r i a n c e b u t t h e ITS does n o t appear t o be t h e method t o employ.22 I t may be d e s i r a b l e t o d e v e l o p a new d i s p o s i t i o n a l t r u s t s c a l e w h i c h i s s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c and w h i c h e n c o u r a g e s s u b j e c t s t o f o c u s on t h e i r t r u s t b e h a v i o u r s . Such a s c a l e might have g r e a t e r s u c c e s s i n b e h a v i o u r a l p r e d i c t i o n t h a n R o t t e r ' s c u r r e n t s c a l e w h i c h f o c u s s e s upon t r u s t a t t i t u d e s . The c o n s i s t e n c y t h a t s u b j e c t s r e v e a l i n t h e i r b e h a v i o u r a l c h o i c e s on a s i t u a t i o n - o r i e n t e d t r u s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( d e s p i t e changes i n s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s ) w o u l d i n d i c a t e s u b j e c t s ' d i s p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l . U n t i l an improvement i n t h e measure i s d e v e l o p e d a l o n g t h e s e l i n e s i t may n o t be p o s s i b l e t o answer q u e s t i o n s about t h e c o m p a r a t i v e e f f e c t s o f d i s p o s i t i o n and s i t u a t i o n on t r u s t b e h a v i o u r , and d i s -^ N a t u r a l l y , n o t a l l r e s e a r c h e r s c o n c u r w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . W r i g h t and Sharp (1979) s a y : "We s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o modify t h e ITS r a t h e r t h a n abandon i t f o r o t h e r t r u s t s c a l e s because t h e r e i s an e x t e n s i v e c o n s t r u c t v a l i d a t i o n network o f f i n d i n g s w i t h t h e ITS t h a t i s more e x t e n s i v e t h a n a l l the o t h e r s c a l e s combined" (p. 8 3 ) . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t W r i g h t has had more s u c c e s s t h a n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t e r i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e ITS ( e . g . , W r i g h t and K i r m a n i , 1977; W r i g h t e t z l . , 1975). 133 appearing s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s (such as i n the case of Wright e t a l . and Experiment III) w i l l plague the l i t e r a t u r e . The experimental i n v e s t i g a t i o n of r i s k i n i t s s e v e r a l forms with regard to t r u s t behaviour has been an important c o n t r i b u t i o n of these experiments. I t has been shown t h a t h i g h s i t u a t i o n a l r i s k d e t e r s t r u s t behaviour. In these experiments, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated when l e v e l o f r i s k was manipulated, f i r s t by i n c r e a s i n g s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of a n e g a t i v e outcome and second by i n c r e a s i n g the v a l u e / u t i l i t y component of the o b j e c t a t stake. In a very o b j e c t i v e and d i r e c t way, i t has been shown t h a t r i s k a f f e c t s the frequency of t r u s t behaviour and, hence, t h a t l e v e l of r i s k i s one of the components determining t r u s t behaviour. Risk assessment has been d e f i n e d a t the o u t s e t of these experiments as r e p r e s e n t i n g the s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of l e v e l of r i s k with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n h e r e n t i n the i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t s i t u a t i o n . The r e s u l t s showed a s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n between r i s k a s s e s s -ment and t r u s t behaviour, although a t t h i s p o i n t , i t cannot be claimed w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t r i s k assessment does i n f a c t precede t r u s t behaviour as l o g i c and the c o n c e p t u a l -i z a t i o n of t r u s t demand. F i n a l l y , p r e l i m i n a r y i n d i c a t i o n s are t h a t r i s k - t a k i n g i n the c o n v e n t i o n a l sense of chance, l u c k , and gambling p l a y s 134 no r o l e i n t r u s t behaviour. I t seems t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s , so c r u c i a l to matters of t r u s t , are of p e r i p h e r a l i n t e r e s t i n s i t u a t i o n s of gambling and chance where matters of odds and outcome are c r i t i c a l . C e r t a i n l y , the e f f e c t of r i s k - t a k i n g i n s i t u a t i o n s of chance and " r i s k -t a k i n g " i n t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n . From the r e s u l t s of the e f f e c t of r i s k assessment and t r u s t behaviour, a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of t r u s t was proposed to i n c l u d e the v a r i a b l e , r i s k a c cept-ance. A comparison of the r e s u l t s of Experiments I and I I l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r i s k acceptance may be a major determinant which might f u r t h e r reduce e r r o r v a r i a n c e i n the p r e d i c t i o n of t r u s t behaviour. An i n c i d e n t a l r e s u l t of these experiments demonstrates the u n i v e r s a l nature of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . Of the 240 s u b j e c t s , not one of them de t e c t e d t h a t they were i n an experiment u n t i l t o l d t h a t such had been the case. That the experiments escaped d e t e c t i o n i s not merely an earmark of t h e i r r e a l i s t i c d e s i g n but a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t s i t u a t i o n s are a common i n g r e d i e n t i n the c r u c i b l e of everyday l i f e . Furthermore, i t was noted d u r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of these experiments t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s , when informed about the experiments, e x h i b i t e d a l i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n the t o p i c . Such keen r e a c t i o n s 135 on the p a r t o f s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e s a g e n e r a l need to know more about t h i s i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of human a c t i v i t y . W h i l e much i s l e f t to be answered about how and why p e o p l e t r u s t , these exper iments have s u p p l i e d some i n f o r -mat ion about the u n d e r p i n n i n g s of t h i s v a r i a b l e . I t i s u n l i k e l y , however, t h a t p h i l o s o p h e r s or t h e o l o g i a n s who o f t e n ponder the n a t u r e o f t r u s t w i l l be s a t i s f i e d by t h i s or o t h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n s o f the t o p i c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n has s u p p l i e d some answers w i t h i n the framework of a s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . W i t h i n t h a t framework, the i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d h e r e i n h e l p s i n the u n r a v e l l i n g of some of the c o m p l e x i t i e s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . 136 Reference Botes ^Kee, H.W. Trust and Suspicion. Unpublished manu-s c r i p t , June, 1967. ( A v a i l a b l e from Dr. R. Knox, Depart-ment of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver). 2 Kee, H., Knox, R., and Coughlan, M. E x p l o i t a t i o n of a blind martyr. in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Ottawa, June 1967. 3 Rose, A. P e r s o n a l communication, A p r i l 1974. 4 Wright, T.L. Pe r s o n a l communication, March 1978. ^Rotter, J.B. P e r s o n a l communication, J u l y 12, 1977. ^Wright, T.L. P e r s o n a l communication, December 12, 1978. 7 R o t t e r , J.B. Interpersonal t r u s t , trustworthiness3 and g u l l i b i l i t y . P r e s i d e n t i a l address of the E a s t e r n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , A p r i l 1977. 8 Hamsher, J.R. J r . V a l i d i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y i n v e n -t o r i e s as a f u n c t i o n of d i s g u i s e of purpose. Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y of C o n n e c t i c u t , 1966. [Cited i n Rotter; (Note 8 ) ] . ^ 137 References Abrahms, J . L. I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n response to the ma n i p u l a t i o n of b e l i e v a b i l i t y of r a t i o n a l e and d e b r i e f i n g procedures ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univ-e r s i t y of C o n n e c t i c u t , 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 3.6.,. 5777-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o -f i l m s No. 76-11, 027) . A l l e n , B. P. P e r c e i v e d t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of a t t i t u d i n a l and b e h a v i o u r a l e x p r e s s i o n s . Journal of Social Psychology, 1912,89, 211.-218. B e a t t i e , M. E. Y. Some d i s t i n c t i o n s and c o m p l e x i t i e s i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 6536A. ( U n i v e r s i t y of M i c r o f i l m s No. 72-14, 800) . Benton, A. A., Gelber, E. R. , K e l l e y , H. H., and L e i b l i n g , B. A. Reactions t o v a r i o u s degrees o f d e c e i t i n a mixed-motive r e l a t i o n s h i p . Journal, of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 170-180. Brehm, J . W., and L i p s h e r , D. Communicator-communicater d i s c r e p a n c y and p e r c e i v e d communicator t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s . Journal of Personality, 1959, .27, 352-361. Chun, K. T. and Campbell, J.:.B. D i m e n s i o n a l i t y of the Ro t t e r I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e . Psychological Reports, 1974, 35, 1059-1970. C l a r k e , W. F. Some e f f e c t s o f nonverbal a c t i v i t i e s and group d i s c u s s i o n on i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t development i n s m a l l groups ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 169A. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 71-18, 955). C o r a z z i n i , J . G. T r u s t as a complex m u l t i - d i m e n s i o n a l c o n s t r u c t . Psychological Reports, 1977, 40, 75-80. Cozby, P. C. S e l f - d i s c l o s u r e : A l i t e r a t u r e review. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1973, 79, 73-91. 138 C r i p p s , T. H. The e f f e c t of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t and s e l e c t e d t a r g e t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on e a r l y acquaintance impressions ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, 1923). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 4656-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 74-5223). Derlega, V. J . , H a r r i s , M. S., and C h a i k i n , A. L. S e l f -d i s c l o s u r e r e c i p r o c i t y , l i k i n g and the d e v i a n t . Journal of Experimental ..Social Psychology, 19.73, .9 , 277-284. Derlega, V. J . , Walmer, J . , and Furman, G. Mutual d i s c l o s u r e i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . Journal .of Social Psychology, 1973, 70., 159-160. b. Deutsch, M. T r u s t and s u s p i c i o n . Journal of C o n f l i c t Resolution, 1958, 2, 265-279.. Deutsch, M. T r u s t , t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s and the F s c a l e . Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1960, 6.1, 138-140. E l l i s o n , C. W., and F i r e s t o n e , I. J . The development of :". i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t as a f u n c t i o n of s e l f - e s t e e m , t a r g e t s t a t u s and.target s t y l e . Journal of Personal-i t y and Social Psychology.., 1974, 29, 655-663. E n d l e r , N.. E. Where the " s t a r s " are: The 25 most c i t e d p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n Canada (19,72-1976) . Canada Psycholog-i c a l Review, 1979, 20(1), 12-21. E r i k s o n , E.. H. Identity: Youth and C r i s i s . New York: Norton, 1968. F i s h b e i n , M., and Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour:. An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975. G a l l o , P.S. E f f e c t s of i n c r e a s e d i n c e n t i v e s upon the use of t h r e a t i n b a r g a i n i n g . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 1966, 4., 14-20. G a l l o , J r . , P. S., and M c C l i n t o c k , C. G. Cooperation and c o m p e t i t i v e behaviour i n mixed-motive games, In L. S. Wrightsman & C. Brigham (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Social Psychology, Monterey, C a l i f o r n i a : Brooks/ C o l e , 1973. 139 G a r f i n k e l , . H. A c o n c e p t i o n of,, and experiments with, " t r u s t " as a c o n d i t i o n of s t a b l e concerted a c t i o n s . In 0. J . Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and Social Interaction. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1963. G i f f i n , K. The c o n t r i b u t i o n of s t u d i e s of sources c r e d i b i l i t y to a theory of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t i n the communication pro c e s s . Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 68, 104-120. Glock, C , and Stark, R. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Hamsher, J . H., G e l l e r , J..D., and R o t t e r , J . B. I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l and the Warren Commission. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,. 9., 21-215. Heider, F. The Psychology., of. Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1,9 58. H e n s l i n , J . M. T r u s t and the Cab D r i v e r , In M. T r u z z i (Ed.), Sociology and Everyday Life.. New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., .1972. Hovland, C. I . , J a n i s , I. L., and K e l l y , H. H. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. New Haven, Conn.: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953. Johnson, D. W., and Noonan, P. E f f e c t s o f acceptance and r e c i p r o c a t i o n o f s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e on the development of t r u s t . Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1972, 19, 411-416. Jou r a r d , S. M. Disclosing Man to Himself. P r i n c e t o n , New J e r s e y : Van Nos.trand, 1968. Jourard,. S. M. Self-disclosure: An Experimental Analysis of the Transparent Self.. New York: W i l e y — I n t e r -s c i e n c e , 1971. Jour a r d , S. M., and Friedman, R. Experimenter-Subject " d i s t a n c e " and s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 278-282. Kanouse, D. E., and Weist, W. M. Some f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c h o i c e i n the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1967, 11, 206-213. 140 Kaplan, R. M. Components of t r u s t : Note on the use of Ro t t e r ' s s c a l e . Psychological Reports, 1973, 33, 13-14. Kee, H. W., and Knox, R. E. Conceptual and metho d o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n the study of t r u s t and s u s p i c i o n . Journal of C o n f l i c t Resolution., 1970, 14, 357-3.66. Knox, R. E., and Douglas, R. L. T r i v i a l i n c e n t i v e s , m arginal comprehension, and dubious g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s from P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma s t u d i e s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ,1971, 20, 160-165. Krebs, D. A Cognitive-Developmental approach to a l t r u i s m , In Altruism, Sympathy and Helping: Psychological and Sociological P r i n c i p l e s . . New York: Academic Pre s s , Inc., 1978. Koocher, G. F. Bathroom behaviour and human d i g n i t y . Journal of Personality •and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 120-121. La P i e r e , R. T., A t t i t u d e s vs a c t i o n s . Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230-237. Lave, L. B. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g c o o p e r a t i o n i n the P r i s o n e r ' s Dilemma. Behavioural Science, 1965, 10, 26-38. Le v i n e , M. E., V i l e n a , J . , Altman, D., and Nadien, M. T r u s t .of the s t r a n g e r : An urban/small town compar-i s o n . Journal of Psychology, 1976, 92, 113-116. L i l l i b r i d g e , . H.,.,and Lundstedt, S. Some i n i t i a l evidence f o r an i n t e r p e r s o n a l r i s k theory. Journal of Psychology, 1967, 66,. 119-128. L i n d s k o l d , S., and Bennett, R. A t t r i b u t i n g t r u s t and c o n c i l i a t o r y i n t e n t from c o e r c i v e power c a p a b i l i t y . Journal of Personality.Social Psychology , 1973, 2.8 , 180-186. L i n d s k o l d , S., and H o r a i , J . E f f e c t s of t a r g e t ' s d i s c l o s u r e of i n t e n t on e x e r c i s e of i n f l u e n c e i n c o n f l i c t . Psychological Reports, 1974, 34, 623-629. Lowrance, W. W. Of Acceptable Risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. Los A l t o s , C a l i f o r n i a : W i l l i a m Kaufmann Inc., 1976. 141 MacDonald, A.P., K e s s e l , V. S., and F u l l e r , J . B. S e l f -d i s c l o s u r e and two kinds of t r u s t . Psychological Reports, 1972, 30,. 143-148. M e l l i n g e r , G. D. I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t as a f a c t o r i n communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52., 304-309. Middlemist, R. D., Knowles, E. S., and Matter, C. F. Pe r s o n a l space i n v a s i o n s i n the l a v o r a t o r y : Suggestive evidence f o r a r o u s a l . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 1976, .34, 541-546. M i l b e r g , D. B. A b i l i t y , i n t e n t i o n a l i t y , a n d the dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p : The e f f e c t on I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g , 197-3). Dissertation .Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 6745-6746-A. ( U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c r o f i l m s No. 74-86.74) . M i l l e r , L. K., and Hamblin, R. L. Interdependence, d i f f e r e n t i a l rewarding, and p r o d u c t i v i t y . American Sociolog.ical Review., 1963,^ 28, 768-778. M i s c h e l , W. Personality and Assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 19.68. Mixon, D. Instead of d e c e p t i o n . Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 1972, 2, 145-177. Orne, M.T. On the s o c i a l psychology of the p s y c h o l o g i c a l experiments: w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to demand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s . In P. Badla, A. Haber, and R.P. Runyon (Eds.), Research Problems in Psychology. Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1970. P i l i s u k , M., and S k o l n i e k , P. Inducing t r u s t : A t e s t of the Osgood Proposal., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19.68., 8, 121-133. Proshansky, H. and Seidenberg, B.. Basic Studies in Social psychology.. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and Winston, 1965. Rapoport, A., and Chammah, A. M. Prisoner's Dilemma: A Study in C o n f l i c t and Cooperation. Ann Arbor: U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan P r e s s , 1965. 142 Rekosh, J . H., and Feigenbaum,.K. D. The n e c e s s i t y of mutual t r u s t f o r c o o p e r a t i v e behaviour i n a two-person game. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 69, 149-154. R o t t e r , J . B. A new s c a l e f o r the measurement of i n t e r -p e r s o n a l t r u s t . Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 651-665. R o t t e r , J . B. G e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a n c i e s f o r i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . American Psychologist, 1971, 26,. 443-452. Rubin,. Z. Liking and Loving: An I n v i t a t i o n to Social Psychology. New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1973. S c h a e f f e r , D. L., and Sulyma, I.M. C i t a t i o n r a t e s and the q u a l i t y of Canadian psychology departments. Canadian Psychological Review, 1979,. 20 (1), 22-31. Schlenker, B. R., Helm, B. and Ted e s c h i , J . T. The e f f e c t s of p e r s o n a l i t y and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s on b e h a v i o u r a l t r u s t . . Journal of .Personality and Social. Psychology, 1973, 25, 419-427. S i n g e r , J . L., and Sin g e r , D. G. P e r s o n a l i t y , In P.H. Mussen and M.R. Rosenzwig (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology ( V o l . 2 3 ) . Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : Annual Reviews. Inc., 1972. Solomon,. L. T h e . i n f l u e n c e o f some types of power r e l a t i o n -s h i p s and game s t r a t e g i e s upon the development of i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 223-230. Stack, L. C. T r u s t e v e r y b o d y — b u t c u t the cards. In H. London and J . Exner (Eds.), Dimensions. of Personality.. New York: Wiley, 1976. Ste i n k e , G. D. V. The p r e d i c t i o n o f untrustworthy behav-i o u r and the I n t e r p e r s o n a l T r u s t S c a l e . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , . U n i v e r s i t y of Connecticut,. 1975) . Dissertation Abstracts .International, 1976, 36, 3586-B. ( U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c r o f i l m s No. 76- 1 7 1 3 ) . Te V a u l t , R. K., Forbes, G. B., and Gromoll, H. F. T r u s t f u l n e s s and s u s p i c i o n as a f u n c t i o n of l i b e r a l or c o n s e r v a t i v e church membership: A f i e l d experiment. Journal of Psychology, 1971, 79, 163-164. 143 W a l l a c h , M . , and Kogan, N . R i s k - t a k i n g : A Study i n c o g n i t i o n and p e r s o n a l i t y . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n , 1964. W a l l a c h , M. and Kogan, N . R i s k - t a k i n g . In G. M a n d l e r and P . Mussen ( E d s . ) , New Directions in Psychology, ( V o l . 3 ) . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and W i n s t o n , 1967. Ward, L . M. S e p a r a t i n g t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y and a t t i t u d i n a l d e t e r m i n a n t s o f c h o i c e b e h a v i o u r i n a t w o - p e r s o n game, In L . W r i g h t s m a n , J r . , J . O ' C o n n o r , and N . J . B a k e r (Eds.), Cooperation and Competition: Readings on Mixed-Motive Games:. B e l m o n t , C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth P u b l i c a t i o n s , 197 2. W e i n s t e i n , M. S. The r o l e o f t r u s t i n program e v a l u a t i o n : Some g u i d e l i n e s f o r the p e r p l e x e d a d m i n i s t r a t o r . Canadian. Psychologist., 1972, 13.(3)., 239-251. W r i g h t , T . L . S i t u a t i o n a l and p e r s o n a l i t y p a r a m e t e r s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t i n a , m o d i f i e d p r i s o n e r ' s dilemma game. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C o n n e c t -i c u t , 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International3 33, 2827-28.28B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 2 - 3 2 , 265) . W r i g h t , T . , K i r m a h i , A . I n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t , t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s , :, and s h o p l i f t i n g i n h i g h s c h o o l . Psychological Reports, 1977, 41, 1165-1160. . W r i g h t , T . L . , M a g g i e d , P . , and P a l m e r , M. L . An u n o b -t r u s i v e s t u d y o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 4 4 6 - 4 4 8 . W r i g h t , T . L . , and S h a r p , E . G . C o n t e n t and g r a m m a t i c a l sex b i a s . o n . t h e ITS and d i f f e r e n t i a l t r u s t towards women and men. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, 47, 7 2 - 8 3 . W r i g h t s m a n , L . S. Assumptions about Human Nature: A Social-rPsychological Approach. M o n t e r e y , C a l . : B r o o k s / C o l e , 1974. Z o b l e , E . Game c o o p e r a t i o n as a f u n c t i o n o f a t r u s t - r e l a t e d e x e r c i s e and l e v e l s o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l t r u s t . ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f C i n c i n n a t i , 1971). Disser-t a t i o n Abstracts International, 1972, 32, 4235B. ( U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 2 - 4 3 3 3 ) . APPENDIX. A General Instructions Library Research Questionnaire 145 General Instructions Thank you f o r agreeing to take p a r t i n my study. T h i s survey i s to determine the extent of misuse of L i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s and whether there i s need f o r a d d i t i o n a l L i b r a r y s e c u r i t y t o prevent t h e f t . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s being done as p a r t of an independent study. I t i s not being undertaken on b e h a l f of the L i b r a r y or the U n i v e r s i t y but has t h e i r a p p r o v a l . Completion of these two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s should take no more than.20 minutes of your' time. The f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e s q u e s t i o n s as t o whether a d d i t i o n a l s e c u r i t y f a c -i l i t i e s are r e q u i r e d i n v a r i o u s areas of the L i b r a r y . P l e a s e answer these q u e s t i o n s by the c a t e g o r i e s p r o v i d e d and whenever these c a t e g o r i e s do not adequately cover your views, add a d d i t i o n a l comments. The second q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s . o f 40 statements which you are to answer wi t h a number between one and f i v e t o i n d i c a t e how much you agree or d i s a g r e e w i t h each statement. ( F u l l i n s t r u c t i o n s are given w i t h the statements.) T h i s i s a g e n e r a l o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e which w i l l be used to measure how honest you b e l i e v e most people are. To encourage people to complete these q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , I am o f f e r i n g a c h o i c e of e i t h e r $.25.00 cash or 50 Western Express L o t t e r y T i c k e t s to a person whose name w i l l ! be s e l e c t e d at random from the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which I r e c e i v e i n the m a i l . To be e l i g i b l e f o r t h i s p r i z e , and a l s o to r e c i e v e a summary of the r e s u l t s of my study, p l e a s e w r i t e your name, address, and phone number on the enclosed sheet. When the survey i s completed, you w i l l be contacted., As i n any r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t conducted a t the U n i v e r s i t y , i f a t any time you f e e l t h a t you do not want to p a r t i c i p a t e , you are under no o b l i g a t i o n to complete t h i s study. Responses -to t h i s study are s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . Your h e l p , however, i s extremely i n v a l u a b l e i n completing my work. 146 Library Research Questionnaire 1. Have you ever had any p e r s o n a l belongings s t o l e n i n the L i b r a r y ? Check the a p p r o p r i a t e answer. Yes No A d d i t i o n a l Comments: 2. I f there were no sig n s a d v i s i n g a g a i n s t l e a v i n g belongings unattended i n c a r r e l s and i f t h e r e were no shortage.of , c a r r e l s , would you leave your books and coat i n the c a r r e l s w h i l e you were away from the L i b r a r y d u r i n g lunch hour or w h i l e a t t e n d i n g a c l a s s ? Check the a p p r o p r i a t e answer. Yes No A d d i t i o n a l Comments: 3. How necessary to L i b r a r y s e c u r i t y and the p r e v e n t i o n of t h e f t do you t h i n k the c o n t r o l l e d e x i t i s ? C i r c l e the number along the s c a l e below which be s t r e p r e s e n t s your answer. Not a t a l l ^ 2 3 4 5 Extremely necessary necessary 4. Should l o c k e r s be pr o v i d e d i n the L i b r a r y washrooms to leave coats and books w h i l e u s i n g the t o i l e t c u b i c l e s ? Check the a p p r o p r i a t e answer. Yes No 5. I f your name i s s e l e c t e d to win the p r i z e f o r p a r t i c i p -a t i n g i n t h i s study, would you p r e f e r to r e c e i v e cash or l o t t e r y t i c k e t s ? Check the a p p r o p r i a t e answer. $25.00 cash 50 Western Express L o t t e r y T i c k e t s _ In order to send you the r e s u l t s of my study (and to n o t i f y you i f you win the p r i z e ) ,. p l e a s e complete below: Name Address . Phone No. . APPENDIX B General Opinion Survey 148 General Opinion Survey T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n n a i r e to determine the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s of d i f f e r e n t people on a v a r i e t y of statements. Please answer the statements by g i v i n g as true a p i c t u r e of your own b e l i e f s as p o s s i b l e . Be sure to read each item c a r e f u l l y and show your b e l i e f s by c i r c l i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number on your answer sheet. If you strongly agree,with an item, c i r c l e the number one.. C i r c l e number two i f you. mildly- agr.ee with the item. That i s , c i r c l e number two. i f you t h i n k the item i s g e n e r a l l y more'.true than untrue a c c o r d i n g t o your b e l i e f s . C i r c l e number three i f you feel the item, i s about equally true as untrue. C i r c l e number four i f you mildly, disagree with the item. That i s , c i r c l e number f o u r i f you f e e l the item i s more untrue than t r u e . If you strongly disagree with an item, f i l l in the space numbered f i v e . 1. S t r o n g l y agree 2. M i l d l y agree 3. Agree and d i s a g r e e e q u a l l y 4. M i l d l y d i s a g r e e 5. S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e 1. Most people would r a t h e r l i v e i n a c l i m a t e t h a t i s m i l d a l l year around than i n one i n which w i n t e r s are c o l d . 2. Hypocrisy i s on the i n c r e a s e i n our s o c i e t y . 3. In d e a l i n g with s t r a n g e r s one i s b e t t e r o f f to be c a u t i o u s u n t i l they have p r o v i d e d evidence t h a t they are t r u s t -worthy. 4. T h i s country has a dark f u t u r e u n l e s s we can a t t r a c t b e t t e r people i n t o p o l i t i c s . 5. Fear of s o c i a l d i s g r a c e or punishment r a t h e r than con-s c i e n c e prevents most people from b r e a k i n g the law. 149 6. Parents u s u a l l y can be r e l i e d upon to keep t h e i r promises. 7. The advice of e l d e r s i s o f t e n poor because the o l d e r person doesn't r e c o g n i z e how times have changed. 8. Using the Honour System of not have a teacher p r e s e n t d u r i n g exams would probably r e s u l t i n i n c r e a s e d c h e a t i n g . 9. The United Nations w i l l never be an e f f e c t i v e f o r c e i n keeping world peace. 10. Parents and teachers are l i k e l y t o say what they b e l i e v e themselves and not j u s t what they t h i n k i s good f o r the c h i l d t o hear. 11. Most people can be counted on t o do what they say they w i l l do. 12. As evidenced by r e c e n t books and movies m o r a l i t y seems on the<:downgrade i n t h i s country. 13. The j u d i c i a r y i s a p l a c e where we can a l l get unbiased treatment.. 14. I t i s sa-fe to b e l i e v e t h a t i n s p i t e of what people say, most people are p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r own w e l f a r e . 15. The f u t u r e seems very promising. 16. Most people would be h o r r i f i e d i f they knew how much news the p u b l i c hears and sees i s d i s t o r t e d . 17. Seeking a d v i c e from s e v e r a l people i s more l i k e l y , t o confuse than i t i s to h e l p one. 18. Most e l e c t e d p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s are r e a l l y s i n c e r e i n t h e i r campaign promises. 19. There i s no simple way of d e c i d i n g who i s t e l l i n g the t r u t h . 20. T h i s country has progressed to the p o i n t where we can reduce the amount of competitiveness encouraged by s c h o o l s and p a r e n t s . 21. Even though we have r e p o r t s i n newspapers, r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n , i t i s hard to get o b j e c t i v e accounts of p u b l i c events. 150 22. I t i s more important t h a t people achieve happiness than t h a t they achieve greatness. 23. Most experts can be r e l i e d upon to t e l l the t r u t h about the l i m i t s of t h e i r knowledge. 24. Most parents can be r e l i e d upon t o c a r r y out t h e i r t h r e a t s of punishment. 25. One should not a t t a c k the p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s of ot h e r people. 26. In these c o m p e t i t i v e times one' has to be a l e r t or some-one i s l i k e l y t o take advantage of you. 27. C h i l d r e n need t o be gi v e n more guidance by teachers and parents than they now t y p i c a l l y get. 28. Most rumors u s u a l l y have a s t r o n g element of t r u t h . 29. Many major n a t i o n a l s p o r t c o n t e s t s are f i x e d i n one way or another. 30. A good l e a d e r molds the o p i n i o n s of the group he i s l e a d i n g rather-:than merely f o l l o w i n g the wishes of the m a j o r i t y . 31. Most i d e a l i s t s are s i n c e r e and u s u a l l y p r a c t i c e what they preach. 32. Most salesmen are honest i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e i r p r o d u c t s . 33. E d u c a t i o n i n t h i s country i s not r e a l l y p r e p a r i n g young men and women to d e a l with the problems of the f u t u r e . 34. Most students i n s c h o o l would not cheat even i f they were sure of g e t t i n g away wit h i t . 35. The hordes of students now going to c o l l e g e are going t o f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t to f i n d good jobs when they graduate than d i d the c o l l e g e graduates of the p a s t . 36. Most repairmen w i l l not overcharge even i f they t h i n k you are i g n o r a n t of t h e i r s p e c i a l t y . 37. A l a r g e share o f a c c i d e n t claims f i l e d a g a i n s t insurance companies are phony. 151 38. One s h o u l d not a t t a c k the r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s of o t h e r p e o p l e . 39. Most p e o p l e answer p u b l i c o p i n i o n p o l l s h o n e s t l y . 40. I f we r e a l l y knew what was g o i n g on i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c s , the p u b l i c would have more r e a s o n to be f r i g h t e n e d than they now seem to b e . 152 APPENDIX C Judges1 Guidelines for C l a s s i f y i n g Subjects' Motives In Experiments I and II into Trust-Related or Not Trust-Related Categories 153 Judges' Guidelines for C l a s s i f y i n g Subjects' Motives In Experiments I and II into Trust-Related or Not Trust-Related Categories Experiment I T r u s t - R e l a t e d Motives A b e l i e f t h a t no one would s t e a l her t h i n g s . Subject s t a t e s t h a t she has v a l u a b l e s among her belongings. Subject n o t i c e d the s i g n which made her t h i n k t h a t she should take'.things i n w i t h her. Subject s a i d t h a t the s i g n made her t a k e . t h i n g s i n t o the c u b i c l e (and changed her u s u a l b e h a v i o u r ) . S p e c i f i c mention of t r u s t . The s i g n spontaneously mentioned f i r s t by s u b j e c t . Motives U n r e l a t e d to T r u s t S t a t e s t h a t she always takes t h i n g s i n w i t h her (a h a b i t ) . I t ' s more convenient to take t h i n g s i n w i t h her. The s i g n d i d n ' t i n f l u e n c e s u b j e c t ' s behaviour. Experiment II T r u s t - R e l a t e d Motives You looked honest, s i n c e r e , e t c . You are a s t r a n g e r . I've done t h i s B e f o r e f o r someone wit h n e g a t i v e consequences. In the same circumstances, I would expect someone to do i t f o r me. Motives U n r e l a t e d to T r u s t You were w r i t i n g an exam and i t i s important. You needed i t . I wanted to h e l p someone i n need. I can' t say "no1.'. 154 Experiment I I (Continued) T r u s t - R e l a t e d Motives I thought t h a t you would r e t u r n the book(s). I would do the same f o r anyone. Motives U n r e l a t e d to T r u s t I see no reason to r e f u s e . M i s c e l l a n e o u s (depends on my mood). 155 APPENDIX D Coding Sheet for the C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Subj eats ' Questions Used In The Study of Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (1975) 156 Coding Sheet for the Clas s i f i c a t i o n of Subjects ' Questions Used In the Study of Wright, Maggied, and Palmer (197 5) S u s p i c i o u s Questions 1. What k i n d of experiment i s i t ? 2. Who i s t h i s ? 3. Q's about the h o u s e — b u i l d i n g — i s t h i s l e g i t i m a t e ? 4. Who i s t h i s ? ( a f t e r b e i n g t o l d above) 5. Who's the experimenter? 6. How d i d you get my name? 7. Why are you c a l l i n g versus sign-up sheet? 8. Am I going to get out on time? L o g i s t i c a l Questions 1. What .time? 2. Where i s i t ? 3. Could you repeat the i n s t r u c t i o n s ? Other Questions e.g., May I b r i n g a f r i e n d ? 157 APPENDIX E Part 1: P o i n t - B i s e r i a l Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s Showing The Relationship between Subjects' Trust Behaviour in Experiment I and Responses to Individual ITS Items Part 2: . P o i n t - B i s e r i a l . Correlation Coefficient Showing the Relationship between Subjects'Trust Behaviour in Experiment II and Responses to Individual ITS Items 158 Part I P o i n t - B i s e v i a l Correlation C o e f f i c i e n t s Showing the Relationship between Subjects' Trust Behaviour in Experiment I and Responses: to Individual. ITS Items T r u s t Behaviour N Item 1 .08 104 Item 2 -.05 104 Item 3 .06 104 Item 4 .01 104 Item 5 .13 104 Item 6 .05 104 Item 7 .08 104 Item 8 -.05 104 Item 9 -.14 104 Item 10 -.04 104 Item 11 -.04 104 Item 12 .11 104 Item 13 -.08 104 Item 14 .10 104 Item 15 -.02 104 Item 16 -.02 104 Item 17 -.03 104 Item 18 -.03 104 Item 19 -.05 104 Item 20 -.05 104 Item 21 -.03 104 Item 22 -.12 104 Item 23 .14 104 Item 24 -.02 104 Item 25 .09 104 159 Part 2 P o i n t - B i s e r i a l Correlation. C o e f f i c i e n t s Showing the Relationship between Subjects '. Trust Behaviour in Experiment II and Responses To Individual ITS Item T r u s t Behaviour N Item 1 .17 108 Item 2 .02 108 Item 3 . 07 108 Item 4 .07 .' 108 Item 5 .14 108 Item 6 -.3 5 p«.01 108 Item 7 -.03 108 Item 8 .10 108 Item 9 .004 108 Item 10 -.23 p<.01 108 Item 11 . 21 p<.05 108 Item 12 .07 108 Item 13 .15 108 Item 14 -.09 108 Item 15 -.08 108 Item 16 .15 108 Item 17' •11 108 Item 18 .08 108 Item 19 -.09 108 Item 20 -.07 108 Item 21 -.17 108 Item 22 .006 108 Item 23 -.15 108 Item 24 .04 108 Item 25 -.15 108 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095059/manifest

Comment

Related Items