What characteristics of an individual signal trustworthiness to other people? I propose that individuals who care about contentious social issues signal to observers that they have integrity and thus can be trusted. Critically, this signal conveys trustworthiness whether or not the target and the observer hold the same view on the issue. Five studies (N = 3,817) demonstrated the predicted effect of caring on integrity-based trust (Studies 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 4)—even in cases of strong disagreement—across a variety of issues (Study 1) and when behavioral outcomes with real stakes were used (Studies 3a and 3b). This effect largely results from a perception of low-caring targets as particularly untrustworthy (Study 2). Additionally, participants trusted targets with staunchly opposing views about an issue even though they simultaneously disliked them (Study 4). These findings have important implications for how people form impressions of others and speak to potential interventions to help mitigate the growing ideological divide.
BaraschA.LevineE. E.BermanJ. Z.SmallD. A. (2014). Selfish or selfless? On the signal value of emotion in altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 393–413. doi:10.1037/a0037207
2.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.
3.
BrewerM. B. (2008). Depersonalized trust and ingroup cooperation. In KruegerJ. I. (Ed.), Rationality and social responsibility: Essays in honor of Robyn Mason Dawes (pp. 215–232). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
4.
BrooksA. W.DaiH.SchweitzerM. E. (2014). I’m sorry about the rain! Superfluous apologies demonstrate empathic concern and increase trust. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 467–474. doi:10.1177/1948550613506122
5.
ButlerJ. K.CantrellR. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19–28.
6.
ByrneD. E. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 35–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 809–824.
8.
ChambersJ. R.SchlenkerB. R.CollissonB. (2013). Ideology and prejudice: The role of value conflicts. Psychological Science, 24, 140–149. doi:10.1177/0956797612447820
9.
De CremerD.SnyderM.DewitteS. (2001). ‘The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?’ The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 93–107.
10.
EdgellP.GerteisJ.HartmannD. (2006). Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71, 211–234. doi:10.1177/000312240607100203
11.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56–62. doi:10.1177/0956797612449177
12.
FoddyM.PlatowM. J.YamagishiT. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20, 419–422. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02312.x
13.
GervaisW. M.ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1189–1206. doi:10.1037/a0025882
14.
GoodwinG. P.PiazzaJ.RozinP. (2014). Moral character predominates in person perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168. doi:10.1037/a0034726
15.
HareC.PooleK. T. (2014). The polarization of contemporary American politics. Northeastern Political Science Association, 46, 411–429. doi:10.1057/pol.2014.10
16.
KramerR. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569
17.
KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
18.
KrepsT. A.LaurinK.MerrittA. C. (2017). Hypocritical flip-flop, or courageous evolution? When leaders change their moral minds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 730–752.
19.
KrepsT. A.MoninB. (2014). Core values versus common sense: Consequentialist views appear less rooted in morality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1529–1542. doi:10.1177/0146167214551154
20.
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
LevineE. E.SchweitzerM. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.007
22.
LountR. B.PettitN. C. (2012). The social context of trust: The role of status. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 15–23. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.07.005
23.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
24.
McCroskeyJ. C.McCainT. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. doi:10.1080/03637757409375845
25.
McFallL. (1987). Integrity. Ethics, 98, 5–20.
26.
MullenE.MoninB. (2016). Consistency versus licensing effects of past moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 363–385. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115120
27.
PorterS.ten BrinkeL. (2008). Reading between the lies: Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19, 508–514. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02116.x
28.
RighettiF.FinkenauerC. (2011). If you are able to control yourself, I will trust you: The role of perceived self-control in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 874–886. doi:10.1037/a0021827
29.
RozinP. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10, 218–221.
30.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2013). Life after P-hacking. In BottiS.LabrooA. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 41). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
SimonsohnU. (2018). Two-lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 538–555. doi:10.1177/2515245918805755
33.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x
34.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895–917. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
35.
SnijdersC.KerenG. (2001). Do you trust? Whom do you trust? When do you trust?Advances in Group Processes, 18, 129–160. doi:10.1016/S0882-6145(01)18006-9
36.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.DiermeierD. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 72–81. doi:10.1177/1745691614556679
37.
Van ZantA. B.MooreD. A. (2015). Leaders’ use of moral justifications increases policy support. Psychological Science, 26, 934–943. doi:10.1177/0956797615572909
38.
WestfallJ.Van BovenL.ChambersJ. R.JuddC. M. (2015). Perceiving political polarization in the United States: Party identity strength and attitude extremity exacerbate the perceived partisan divide. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 145–158. doi:10.1177/1745691615569849
39.
ZakP. J.KnackS. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111, 295–321.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
