en pl
en pl

Central European Management Journal

Show issue
Year 12/2020 
Volume 28 
Issue 4

No Trust vs. Some Trust in a Game Framed as Trust or Investment: Avoiding the Distrustor

Anna Macko
Kozminski University

12/2020 28 (4) Central European Management Journal

DOI 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.35


Purpose: The study aimed at examining how observing a person showing no trust or some trust, in interaction framed as a trust or an investment, influences two variables: anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor and willingness to avoid such a person in future cooperative tasks. Additionally, the perception of the trustor and anticipated feelings in the role of the trustee were analyzed.
Methodology: A scenario describing the trust game framed as trust or investment was used in the study. Participants (N = 166) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: 2 (amount sent in the game: zero vs. one-tenth of the endowment) x 2 (game framing: trust vs. investment) and after reading the scenario made three types of evaluations: (1) their feelings in the position of the trustee from the scenario; (2) the trustor’s sociability, morality, and competence and (3) anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor in the future, and finally (4) willingness to avoid the trustor in future interactions.
Results: Interaction effects were found for evaluations of anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor and willingness to avoid the trustor in future interactions. Observing sending nothing in the trust game framed as trust, rather than investment, resulted in stronger anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating in the future with the trustor, and stronger willingness to avoid such a person as a partner for cooperation. Moreover, independent of the framing of the game, in condition of no trust, participants reported stronger negative feeling when imagining themselves in the role of the trustee and perceived the trustor as less sociable and less competent. Surprisingly, the perception of trustor’s morality did not differ across the conditions.
Conclusions: Observing distrust, particularly when the interaction is interpreted in social terms as trust, rather than in economic ones as non-investing, with all other aspects of the situation the same, results in different attitude towards the distrustor on the side of observers. Distrust, in comparison to just non-investing, evokes in observers a stronger propensity to avoid such the distrustor as a partner for cooperation and lowers their anticipated satisfaction from cooperation with him/her.


  1. Baumard, N. (2010). Has punishment played a role in the evolution of cooperation? A critical review. Mind & Society, 9(2), 171–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11299-010-0079-9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baumard, N. (2011). Punishment is not a group adaptation. Mind & Society, 10(1), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11299-010-0080-3. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity and social history, Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bicchieri, C., Xiao, E., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Trustworthiness is a social norm, but trusting is not. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 10(2), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X10387260 [Google Scholar]
  5. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments on strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, M.S., and Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relationships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 684–692. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dunning, D., Anderson, J. E., Schlösser, T., Ehlebracht, D., and Fetchenhauer, D. (2014). Trust at zero acquaintance: More a matter of respect than expectation of reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036673. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., and Schloesser, T. (2016). The Psychology of Respect A case study of How Behavioral norms regulate human action. In: A. Elliot (ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 3, pp. 1–34). New York, NY: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2015.12.003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dunning, D., Fetchenhauer, D., and Schlösser, T.M. (2012). Trust as a social and emotional act : Noneconomic considerations in trust behavior q. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 686–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.09.005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Eiser, J.R. and Bhavnani, K. (1974). The effect of situational meaning on the behaviour of subjects in the Prisoner's Dilemma Game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4(1), 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  11. Evans, A. M., and van de Calseyde, P. (2017). The reputational consequences of generalized trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217742886. [Google Scholar]
  12. Feinberg, M., Willer, R., and Schultz, M. (2014). Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups. Psychological Science, 25, 656–664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613510184. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerlach, P., and Jaeger, B. (2016). Another frame, another game? Explaining framing effects in economic games. Norms, Actions, Games, (June), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AB5YP [Google Scholar]
  14. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., and Ditto, P.H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130. [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson, N.D., and Mislin, A.A. (2011). Trust games: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kay, A.C., and Ross, L. (2003). The perceptual push: The interplay of implicit cues and explicit situational construals on behavioral intentions in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 634–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00057-X. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kemper, N.S., and Newheiser, A.-K. (2017). To Confront or to Avoid. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 194855061772283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722831. [Google Scholar]
  18. Krueger, J.I., Massey, A.L., and DiDonato, T.E. (2008). A matter of trust: From social preferences to the strategic adherence to social norms. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 31–52. [Google Scholar]
  19. Liberman, V., Samuels, S.M., and Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining Prisoner’s Dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264004. [Google Scholar]
  20. Liddell, T.M., and Kruschke, J.K. (2014). Ostracism and fines in a public goods game with accidental contributions : The importance of punishment type, Judgment and Decision Making, 9(6), 523–547. [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin, J., Young, L., and McAuliffe, K. (2019). The psychology of partner choice. https://psyarxiv.com/weqhz/ [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu, J., Balliet, D., and Van Lange, P.A.M. (2016). Reputation, gossip, and human cooperation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12255. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Macko, Anna (2020). No Trust vs. Some Trust in a Game Framed as Trust or Investment: Avoiding the Distrustor. (2020). No Trust vs. Some Trust in a Game Framed as Trust or Investment: Avoiding the Distrustor. Central European Management Journal, 28(4), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.35 (Original work published 12/2020AD)

MLA style

Macko, Anna. “No Trust Vs. Some Trust In A Game Framed As Trust Or Investment: Avoiding The Distrustor”. 12/2020AD. Central European Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 4, 2020, pp. 67-85.

Chicago style

Macko, Anna. “No Trust Vs. Some Trust In A Game Framed As Trust Or Investment: Avoiding The Distrustor”. Central European Management Journal, Central European Management Journal, 28, no. 4 (2020): 67-85. doi:10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.35.